Preamble

The House met at Hall past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (by Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF PENSIONS

Disability Pensions

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the equality of opportunity now available for women to serve in the Women's Royal Army Corps, he will pay disability pensions on an equal basis.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): Ex-Service men and women of the basic grades, private and equivalent, in the Services receive the same rates of disability pension. I regret that I can hold out no hope at the present time of equality in the additions which are made to disability pension for rank, which reflect generally the differentiation in emoluments between men and women serving in the Forces.

Miss Ward: Having regard to the fact that we have now granted an amnesty to deserters, would it not be appropriate to grant ex-Service women who have served their country the same rights as are accorded to women in industry and women injured under the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme? Will my hon. Friend please reconsider the matter in that light?

Mr. Amory: I am not sure whether I feel really competent in taking on my hon. Friend on this matter, but, as long as we have an element of rank in our

pensions provisions, it is not unreasonable that there should be a reflection of the differentials in rank remuneration to men and women.

Miss Ward: Is the Minister aware that I do not agree with that, and will he please look at the matter again?

Mr. Amory: If my hon. Friend will look at the matter again, perhaps she will agree with me.

Stump Socks (Complaints)

Mr. Simmons: asked the Minister of Pensions how many complaints he had received during the past 12 months concerning the quality of stump socks; and what steps have been taken to investigate them.

Mr. Amory: About 70 such complaints have been received, which is a small number in relation to the 23,665 dozen socks supplied. The complaints, which relate to wool and cotton mixture socks, have been or are being met by the issue of pure wool socks. As stocks of the former become exhausted they are, as the hon. Member is aware, being replaced by pure wool socks.

Mr. Simmons: Is the Minister aware that I have had complaints from a member of the other House and from several other quarters about stump socks? Is he aware that the present stump socks have not got the cushioning effect of the old Wolsey pre-war style socks, and will he cause still further research to be made into the matter in order to give the ex-Service men with artificial limbs the desired comfort?

Mr. Amory: Yes, I will, and I shall be most glad of any help that the hon. Gentleman can give me in this matter. I agree with him that we want the very best socks we can possibly get, and if there are any new materials which can help us we shall be glad to try them.

Mr. Simmons: I am much obliged

National Service Grants

Sir R. Acland: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has considered the case sent to him relating to a Royal Navy reservist, resident in Swanscombe. who, on being called for 18 months service, receives from his employer a relatively small sum from a balance of civil


pay scheme, and as a consequence is not entitled to apply for any National Service grant at all; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Amory: Yes, Sir. The scheme of National Service grants is intended to relieve cases of serious hardship which might otherwise arise among the families and dependants of National Service men and reservists recalled to the Forces. If an employer is operating a scheme whereby Service pay is made up to basic civil pay, no serious hardship should arise. It was therefore decided, in consultation with the Service Departments, on whose behalf I administer National Service grants, that the grants shall not be payable to Service men who are eligible for balance of civil pay from their employers.

Sir R. Acland: Does that not mean that a man, in whose circumstances there would be attracted a National Service grant of 20s. or 30s. to meet his real needs, is in the position that he will get nothing at all if he happens to have 6s. or 7s. under a balance of civil pay scheme, and is it not a real hardship and a case in which the Minister should make up the difference?

Mr. Amory: The position which I described is the present position. I recognise that there is something in what the hon. Baronet has said, and I am looking further into this kind of case.

Pensions (Basis)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Pensions the estimated cost to his Department in a given year of instituting the principle of "Fit for service, fit for pension."

Mr. Amory: It is very difficult to give a reliable estimate, but it appears that the additional cost to my Department might well be not less than £35 million in a year.

Mr. Lewis: While that may appear to be a large sum, in view of the amount of good that it would do to a number of people who legitimately feel that they have a claim, will not the Minister look at this matter again? I know that he has viewed it sympathetically, but may I ask him again to see whether or not he could touch the Chancellor's stony heart to do something for these people?

Mr. Amory: I think that the present basis has been accepted for many years, and is now accepted, as just and reasonable by those concerned. I am afraid I could not contemplate a change of the kind proposed at the present time.

Mr. Chetwynd: In order to help us to assess the reasonableness of that, can the Minister give the proportion of applications for pensions accepted by his Department.

Mr. Amory: Not without notice, although I should be glad to provide the information if the hon. Gentleman would put down a Question.

Mr. Shurmer: Is the Minister aware that this is a matter of grave concern to ex-Service men and their relatives? They cannot believe that where a man who was fit for service comes out with some disease, his condition has not been aggravated, if not caused, by his service. Surely, a man coming out of the Army in such a condition should be eligible for a pension?

Mr. Amory: I would remind the hon. Gentleman of the present basis. If the disability is either caused or aggravated by service in the Forces then a pension is payable.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Is the guiding principle for administrative purposes that if any doubt exists the man should be given the benefit of that doubt?

Mr. Amory: Any reasonable doubt is given in favour of the pension applicant.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Is my hon. Friend aware that this does not appear to be so in large numbers of cases? The benefit of the doubt appears not to be given in many cases because it is so difficult to prove whether or not the disability is the result of active service.

Mr. Amory: I could not agree more with my hon. and gallant Friend that that is very often so, but I would point out that it is the benefit of any reasonable doubt and not, of course, the benefit of any possible doubt. I can only once again invite any hon. Member who has a case where it appears that justice has not been done to put it to my Department and to write to me personally.

Total Disability Pensioners (Coronation)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Pensions the estimated cost to his Department of granting an extra 10s. to all totally disabled ex-Service pensioners in the week preceding the Coronation.

Mr. Amory: About £25,000.

Mr. Lewis: In view of the fact that that would be comparatively a very small sum spread over the whole expenditure and that these people have suffered grievous injury, does not the Minister think that in this instance he could ask his right hon. Friend the Chancellor to agree to give him his £25,000 with which to bring a little joy to the homes of these disabled ex-Service men?

Mr. Amory: I am sure we all sympathise with and applaud the idea behind the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but I have no authority under which I could make a payment of that kind at the present time. Even if I had, it would be open to repercussions right outside the confines of my Department.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that if he tried to take the necessary powers he would receive the immediate support and unanimous approval of this House? Will not he do it?

Mr. Amory: If I may, I will remember that on future occasions.

BRITISH ARMY

Nylon Stockings

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for War what allocation of nylon stockings is to be made to the members of the Women's Royal Army Corps.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): At present the first issue is three pairs of rayon for No. 1 Dress and four pairs of lisle for working dress. It is proposed, as soon as stocks permit, to substitute nylon for the rayon and issues of nylons in certain sizes have already begun. We have also changed the colour.

Mr. Dodds: Is not the Minister ashamed of that statement? Is he not aware that the issue of nylons has been granted for some time to women in the

Navy and that from 1st March all the women in the W.R.A.F. will be getting nylons? Why must these women continue to be the Cinderellas of the Services?

Mr. Head: They are going to get nylons, and for the first time their recruiting has passed that of the W.R.A.F.

Mr. Mikardo: Does the Minister expect to change over from rayon to nylon before or after all other women have changed over from nylon to terylene?

W.R.A.C. (Technical Pay)

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for War what consultations he had with the trade unions on the new terms for recruitment for the technical branches of the Women's Royal Army Corps; and whether the rate for the job is embodied in the rates of pay.

Mr. Head: None, Sir. The changes being made are an extension of existing arrangements for recruitment of women for technical duties. Women who qualify for and carry out such duties receive the rates of pay already fixed.

Miss Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that as this is a new recruitment it would have been more appropriate to discuss the matter with the trade unions? Now that it appears that it has not been so discussed, will my right hon. Friend consult the trade unions, and if they recommend the rate for the job in technical trades, will he accept the recommendation?

Mr. Head: These rates were fixed some time ago. The changes to which the hon. Lady is referring are merely that a recruit to the W.R.A.C. can select her trade and be guaranteed that she will go to it before she joins instead of after as was previously the case.

Mr. Bottomley: Can the Minister say whether there have been consultations with the trade unions on this matter?

Mr. Head: We are in the closest consultation with the trade unions on all rates of pay and they are very cooperative on this question of conditions and rates of pay for both men and women and recognition of qualifications after they leave the Services.

Royal Salutes (Cost)

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for War why local authorities are being asked to pay the cost of ammunition for Royal Salutes to be fired by Territorial units at Coronation celebrations.

Mr. Head: Royal Salutes fired from authorised saluting stations are paid for by the Army. Where permission is given for troops to fire guns at the special request of local authorities, the cost, as on previous occasions, is borne by the local authorities.

Mr. Hynd: Fortunately, Coronations do not happen very often, but would it not be an added attraction to the local celebrations and at the same time an encouragement and an incentive to recruiting if local units of the Territorials were allowed to fire salutes at the cost of the War Office on this very special occasion?

Mr. Head: Many salutes have been requested and we have not received complaints about payment. If I were to undertake payment for all salutes throughout the country it would amount to a very considerable sum.

Mr. Alport: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that whoever pays for these salutes, contrary to recent experience, the salutes go off with a bang?

Mr. Head: Yes, Sir.

Pension Awards

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Secretary of State for War what progress is being made with the payment of the pension increase granted to Army personnel in 1952; and how many pensioners have still not received the additional pension that is due to them.

Mr. Head: Awards have been made in about 29,300 cases. It is hoped to deal with the remaining 2,900 applications during the next few weeks. There are also some 6,000 possible cases which are being examined although no application has been made.

Brigadier Clarke: Will my right hon. Friend consider making some announcement to the Press to allay the fears of those who think that they may not be eligible for this award and are consequently very worried?

Mr. Head: I think that my hon. and gallant Friend's Question may have the effect he wishes. The proportion of applicants who have not yet received an answer is very small.

Air Trooping (York Aircraft)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will reconsider his decision to operate York aircraft on North Atlantic trooping contracts until the completion of the inquiry which is pending into the recent loss of one machine.

Mr. Mikardo: asked the Secretary of State for War when he expects to receive a report on the inquiry into the loss of the York aircraft carrying soldiers and Army families from this country to Jamaica.

Mr. Head: I am in close touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation who expects the results of the preliminary investigation of the Chief Inspector of Accidents within about a week. Meanwhile, no flights are scheduled to take place.

Mr. Beswick: Whilst reserving detailed questions on previous answers until the debate on the Army Estimates, when I hope to go into more detail, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that his present answer, which I gather means that no more flights will take place until a fuller inquiry is made into this loss, displays more wisdom than the replies he made on 5th February?

Mr. Head: There is no change from my answer on that occasion when, as the hon. Member will see if he refers to HANSARD, I said that no flights would take place subject to this inquiry and that nobody would be placed in danger.

Mr. Mikardo: When the right hon. Gentleman receives the report, will he bear in mind that an operator of this service was advised by the largest operator on the route that these aircraft were not fit for this service in winter? Will he also bear in mind that B.O.A.C. had plenty of pressurised aircraft available which could have done the job in safety? Was it purely doctrinaire considerations which led him to provide a profit for private enterprise even at the cost of greater safeguards?

Mr. Head: I am not personally qualified to speak about the suitability of aircraft and there is an inquiry going on. but I would point out to the hon. Member that prior to this unfortunate and tragic accident Yorks had made 112 flights across the Atlantic without any incidents at all.

Mr. Mikardo: Not in winter.

Air Commodore Harvey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that three or four years ago the South American Airways Corporation were flying these aircraft across the Atlantic at a much higher all-up weight?

Mr. Beswick: Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that South American Airways Corporation made a special point—and Air Vice-Marshal Bennett made it quite clear some years ago—of never operating these aircraft at any time over the North Atlantic in winter?

Storm Damage, Scotland

Major Anstruther-Gray: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has yet received any requests from Scotland for assistance, either by organised parties or by the release of individual personnel, in dealing with the problem of blown-down timber.

Mr. Head: No, Sir.

Major Anstruther-Gray: May we take it from that reply that if any requests are received from the Scottish Office my right hon. Friend will give them sympathetic consideration?

Mr. Head: Yes, Sir. I think that the Army has already shown that it is always most willing to co-operate in dealing with flood and storm damage.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a recent television programme there were pictures of soldiers beating tin cans in preparation for some procession? Does he not think that it would be better if they were sent to Scotland to help in clearing timber?

Mr. Head: I am wondering what was this television programme and what was the procession.

N.A.A.F.I. Premises, Jamaica

Mr. D. J ones: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes' premises situated on the Up Park Camp site, Jamaica, has, on instructions from the commanding officer locally, been partitioned into two sections, one for the use of British Forces and the other section for the use of coloured local forces; and what steps he proposes to take to stop this attempt at racial discrimination in the British Army located in Jamaica.

Mr. Head: I have called for a full report.

Mr. Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman also ask why the arrangements were changed in this case and whether there are any other indications of racial discrimination as between United Kingdom and Jamaican troops at this place?

Mr. Head: I think those points will be covered by the report for which I have asked.

Brigadier Rayner: I commanded a mixed unit on the North-West Frontier for a few years. Half were Gurkhas and half were British all ranks. Although the British would not very much have liked to share their canteen with the Gurkhas, the Gurkhas would have been horrified if they had had to share their canteen with the British. There is some ignorance of the realitles in a Question of this kind.

Mr. Driberg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, on the whole, Jamaica, unlike some other Colonies, has been singularly and happily free from racial discrimination or colour bars or anything like that? When he has his full report, if he finds that the statements made in this Question are substantially true, will he give an undertaking to take immediate steps to put an end to the practice?

Mr. Head: I think I had better see the report first.

Coronation Arrangements (Cost)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for War his estimate of the extra expenditure he proposes to make on military arrangements in connection with the Coronation.

Mr. Head: About £450,000.

Mr. Hughes: Did the Minister receive the circular on economy which the Chancellor sent out to Departments—or did the Communists capture it on its way between the Treasury and the War Office?

Mr. Head: I think it is right that the Queen's soldiers should be properly represented at her Coronation.

Brigadier Peto: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is a source of great disappointment to all units that the number of soldiers they can send to the Coronation is so limited?

Mr. Head: Yes, but, if I were to allow all those who wish to be present at the Coronation procession to do so, I should probably spend about £4 million.

Mr. Fernyhough: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that to spend £450,000 in this manner and then to sabotage the work of the W.E.A. for £25,000 is a great reflection upon his Government?

Motor Spirit (Saving)

Mr. Crouch: asked the Secretary of State for War what saving there has been in motor spirit used in Army establishments in Great Britain during 1952, as compared wih. 1951.

Mr. Head: About 1,610,000 gallons.

Mr. Crouch: Does my right hon. Friend realise that this announcement will be very welcome throughout the whole country?

Major Legge-Bourke: Whilst welcoming the economy in general, may I ask my right hon. Friend for an assurance that it has not been effected as a result of impairing the training abilities of armoured regiments in particular?

Mr. Head: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend of that.

W.R.A.C. Camp, Richmond Park

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for War whether arrangements have now been made to provide an adequate guard for the Women's Royal Army Corps camp at Richmond Park.

Mr. Head: Yes, Sir.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is it not a disgraceful state of affairs that so many robberies and assaults have taken place in this camp during recent weeks? In the circumstances, will the Minister consider transferring this unit, which consists largely of women waiting for overseas postings, to other quarters where, without considerable expenditure, they could be provided with rather more effective protection than they have been getting?

Mr. Head: No, Sir. There have been only two such incidents. I am satisfied that the guard arrangements are all right. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman visited the camp, especially by night, I think he would find that the members of the W.R.A.C. are well able to look after themselves.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Can the Minister say whether the guard is to consist of ladies or gentlemen?

Mr. Head: There are a few gentlemen. but the majority are ladies.

KOREA

Air Mail Rates (Newspapers)

Miss Burton: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the British Forces in Korea are still short of up-to-date newspapers and periodicals from home and that air mail rates, even those reduced for Forces mail, prevent families sending papers by this method and if, as surface mail takes so long to reach Korea, he will make further inquiries as to the possibility of reducing air mail rates for newspapers and periodicales sent to our Forces in distant lands.

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for War why the cost of sending newspapers by air to members of Her Majesty's Forces in Malaya is so high: and whether he will reduce the charge.

Mr. Crouch: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider a reduction in the air mail rates for newspapers despatched to our Forces in Korea and elsewhere, in view of the particular appreciation of this news from home and the prohibitively high current charges on such packets.

Mr. Head: The air mail rate for newspapers to Korea, Malaya and other distant theatres is subsidised. My Department sends out weekly by air to all overseas theatres Sunday newspapers on the scale of one for every five men. The cost of air conveyance is borne by public funds and the papers are issued free in Korea and elsewhere sold at the same prices as in this country. In addition, a variety of periodicals are sent out to Korea by sea. I think that this scale is adequate and do not feel justified in asking for more money.

Miss Burton: Is the Minister aware that when the Quartermaster-General returned he said that what the men in Korea wanted were up-to-date newspapers from home? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that the public feel it is most unfair that the cost of sending the newspapers should have to be borne by the men and their families? They are quite prepared to contribute to this cost. Will the Minister discuss the matter with the newspapers to see whether they and the Government together can make this a better service?

Mr. Head: I am only too glad to go into particular items of that kind, but we are already spending about £1½ million on postal concessions, and to send daily newspapers by air would be an immense added burden.

Mr. Crouch: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it costs 3s. 6d. to send the "Observer" and the leader page of "The Times" once a week in a parcel? I feel that that is a very high charge to fall on the parents of anyone serving in Korea.

Mr. Head: I see that we do send 153 copies of the "Observer" to Korea, and I am told that, in general, the selection of weekly newspapers sent to Korea is satisfactory.

Mr. Chapman: Is the Minister aware that to send a moderate sized bundle of local newspapers—and his scheme will not cover local newspapers—it costs over 4s.? Could not some arrangement be made so that a man has the opportunity to receive these newspapers from his friends, parents and relatives?

Mr. Head: As I have said, such a scheme would have to be subsidised, and, unfortunately, large quantities of news-

paper are very heavy and the sums involved would be very big.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Is not the Minister aware that there is great indignation among the parents about this matter, and that to send a small newspaper of local interest to the boys in Korea is costing 2s.? While the Minister says that it is costing £1½ million, will he bear in mind that it is costing the lads a lot more?

Mr. Head: The dilemma is quite a clear one. To send the number of papers that would be needed would cost a very large additional sum of money. They can go by sea, though they arrive very late. The Sunday papers include Welsh and Scottish papers.

Cemeteries

Mr. Hargreaves: asked the Secretary of State for War the number of cemeteries in Korea in the care of the Imperial War Graves Commission at the latest convenient date.

Mr. Head: There are no cemeteries in Korea in the care of the Imperial War Graves Commission. The dead of the Commonwealth Division are buried in the United Nations cemeteries.

Mr. Hargreaves: In the case of people who served in our own Forces, whose deaths occurred more than two years ago and who are buried in Korea, can the Minister arrange that some detail of their burial places might be made known to their parents? A case of this kind has been reported to the right hon. Gentleman's Department.

Mr. Head: I think that the hon. Member has another Question on the Order Paper dealing with that specific case. It is one which presented peculiar difficulties because operational conditions at the time made identification extremely difficult.

Mr. Hargreaves: asked the Secretary of State for War what steps have been taken to care for the graves in the British section of Taegu cemetery, Korea, and to inform the next-of-kin.

Mr. Head: The graves in the British section of the United Nations Cemetery at Taegu, Korea, were removed during 1951 to the United Nations Cemetery, Pusan, where they could be properly maintained.


The next-of-kin have been informed in all cases where identification has been established beyond doubt.

Mr. Hargreaves: Is the Minister satisfied that after that clearance of the cemetery the graves of British troops were tended and cared for, as no doubt they would have been in the care of the Imperial War Graves Commission? Will he have another look at this case, because the evidence which he has submitted to the House does not agree with his own Departmental reply?

Mr. Head: I have been into this matter very closely and my answer agrees both with what we have written and with what we know about this case. It was difficult to maintain the previous burial ground, which was near the front line, and therefore we removed the bodies to the new burial ground in this area near Pusan where I am assured that they are being looked after adequately.

Casualties (Personal Effects)

Mr. Hargreaves: asked the Secretary of State for War if means can be found to despatch promptly to their next-of-kin the personal effects of men killed in Korea.

Mr. Head: The personal effects are sent back by the unit as soon as possible to Japan. From there, they are sent home and are normally delivered within two to four months of the date of death.

Mr. Hargreaves: Is the Minister aware that in the case which he evidently knows death occurred in September, 1950, and that after very many applications some of the effects were delivered to the parents more than two years later and that the complete effects still have not reached the parents? Would he please do his utmost to clear the channels and get these things sent home at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Head: I have been into this case and I admit that it is a most unfortunate one. I ought to point out that the very long delay initially was due to this problem of identification, on which we must always be very careful, because any false identification might lead to difficulties in the future. Now that the identity has been cleared up every step is being taken to have the effects returned.

Mr. Hargreaves: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this case, where the death occurred as a result of an unfortunate error on the part of an American bombing squadron, this soldier died in our hands in a casualty clearing station and there is no question here of identification? Is he aware that therefore he cannot explain the facts by that suggestion of a difficulty in identification?

Mr. Head: This man died on the way to an American hospital.

TRADE AND COMMERCE

American Aircraft Spares

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of aircraft spares and materials purchased from the United States during 1952; and what proportion of this amount was for the use of British Overseas Airways Corporation

The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. Mackeson): Imports of aircraft parts from the United States during 1952, excluding those imported under the Mutual Defence Assistance agreement, were valued at £5,492,000. I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend, however, that this figure includes substantial imports by foreign airlines, for the maintenance of aircraft operating in this country, which do not represent purchases by us. I regret that no information is available about aircraft materials as such. With regard to the second part of the Question it would be contrary to normal practice to disclose the purchases of individual firms whether private or state-owned

Air Commodore Harvey: That answer does not tell us very much. Will my hon. Friend say how many of these spares were intended for the Royal Air Force or what was their value? Secondly, if he cannot give us the information regarding B.O.A.C., will he ask his right hon. Friend the Minister of Civil Aviation to have this item included in the balance sheet, because hon. Members of this House represent the shareholders in the Corporation and we should like to know.

Mr. Mackeson: As far as the defence element is concerned, I should like to consider it to see whether there is any possibility of answering without infringing


security. As tar as the other matter is concerned, perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put down a Question.

Mr. Beswick: Will the hon. Gentleman do nothing at all to impose restrictions which might impair the high safety standards of this Corporation when operating over the Atlantic?

Films Quota

Mr. Swingler: asked the President of the Board of Trade what recommendations he has received from the Cinematograph Films Council about the quotas for British first feature and supporting films for the year beginning October. 1953 and what action he will take.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): The Cinematograph Films Council have recommended that the quota for the supporting programme for the year beginning on the 1st October, 1953, should be 25 per cent. as at present. They were unable to make an agreed recommendation for the quota for first feature films. My right hon. Friend is carefully considering this matter and will make a statement soon.

Mr. Swingler: Can the Minister say how soon the President of the Board of Trade will make his statement? Is he aware that this accumulation of uncertainty about the quota, the Eady scheme and Entertainments Duty will have a most harmful effect on the film industry? Will he press his right hon. Friend to make a statement as soon as possible?

Mr. Strauss: My right hon. Friend will be making a statement at an early date.

Mr. Swingler: asked the President of the Board of Trade his estimates of the numbers of British first feature and supporting films to be produced in 1953; and if he is satisfied that production will be sufficient for the maintenance of the quotas.

Mr. H. Strauss: My right hon. Friend has not sufficient evidence for such an estimate. Films produced in 1953 will not in general be available for the current quota year. My right hon. Friend will make a statement soon about the quota for the year beginning on the 1st October, 1953.

Mr. Swingler: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that one of the reasons why he is unable to make an estimate is because of the uncertainty generated in the film production industry by the lack of any decision on the effect of the Eady levy'? Will he therefore pay some attention to these protracted neotiations with the film trade about the future of the Eady levy, in order that producers may begin to make some plans about production this year and next year?

Mr. Strauss: We recognise the importance of these matters.

Sack Kraft Paper

Mr. Gough: asked the President of the Board of Trade to give an assurance that applications for the import of sack kraft paper for re-export will be allowed, as the quota system is not sufficient to cover the demands of both the home and export markets.

Mr. Mackeson: I am always willing to consider applications to import materials needed for the export trade where these needs cannot be met from supplies available in this country. I am advised, however, the present supplies of sack kraft paper from home production and imports are in general adequate for both home and export needs. In these circumstances additional expenditure of foreign currency would not be justified.

Mr. Gough: Would not my hon. Friend agree that there are two types of sack kraft paper? There is the low stretched creped sack kraft paper which, I understand, is suitable for home needs, and the micro-creped sack kraft paper which, I understand, is used entirely for re-exporting? If I give my hon. Friend an example will he look into the matter, because at the moment the supply is completely insufficient for export needs.

Mr. Mackeson: Yes, I shall look into the matter. I was not aware of the technical details. My hon. Friend might like to know that we have had no representations on this matter from the industry. If he will let me have particulars I shall be pleased to look into them.

Anglo-French Trade

Mr. Jay: asked the President of the Board of Trade what requests the members of the French Government, who


took part in the recent talks in London with Her Majesty's Government, made for this country to relax restrictions on imports from France; and what answer Her Majesty's Government has given.

Mr. Mackeson: The French Ministers asked Her Majesty's Government to consider the possibility of relaxing import restrictions in any way which would enable France to export more goods to the United Kingdom. As stated in the communiqué issued at the end of the discussions, we undertook to give sympathetic consideration to the position of France when considering our future import arrangements.

Mr. Jay: Can the Minister say how soon any decision is likely to be reached?

Mr. Mackeson: I could not say.

Mr. Edelman: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it will help our trade with the sterling area as a whole if we allow the traditional pattern of trade with France to be resumed and permit the French to earn more sterling?

Mr. Mackeson: We are looking into this matter very carefully.

Captain Duncan: Whilst welcoming the extension of our trade with France, may I ask my hon. Friend also to bear in mind the paramount needs of the horticultural industry in this country?

Monopolies Commission Reports

Major Markham: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that certain statistics and other information published in the Reports of the Monopolies Commission have been of assistance to our international competitors; and whether in future he will consult with the Commission with a view to ensuring that the industries concerned are enabled to see the Reports before publication so that their opinion may be expressed on these matters.

Mr. H. Strauss: No, Sir; though I agree that published information could, on occasion, have that effect. I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that Section 9 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act, 1948, lays on my right hon. Friend the duty of laying before Parliament only so much of a Report as in his opinion can

be made public without injury to the public interest. When he thinks it necessary, he will be prepared to discuss with the industry concerned the possible effect on the public interest of revealing certain information.

Major Markham: Is the Minister not aware that already some damage has been done to our exporting industries by the publication of extremely confidential material? Is he not aware that it is essential that our exporting industries should be safeguarded against this giving away of vital information to our international competitors?

Mr. Strauss: I am aware of the possible danger to which my hon. and gallant Friend draws attention, but I think it right to say that no representations about such damage have been made to the Board of Trade.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is not far more damage being done to our exports by the failure of the Government to take effective action against these monopolies?

Australian Import Quotas

Major Anstruther-Gray: asked the President of the Board of Trade to give an estimate of the effect upon British trade of recent Australian decisions to increase import quotas.

Mr. Mackeson: Australian import quotas are not tied to particular countries, so that it is not possible to make any reliable estimate of the likely value to our trade of the recent relaxations.

Major Anstruther-Gray: It is fair to assume, is it not, that there will be considerable benefit to British and Australian trade?

Mr. Mackeson: Yes, certainly, but it is difficult to obtain an estimate as those quotas apply not only to this country but to many other countries.

Mr. Chapman: Is the Minister making any new representations to Australia on this question? In the motor trade, for example, the Australian cut amounted to about half of their normal imports. Is the Minister aware that that is of vital importance? Are any representations being made?

Mr. Mackeson: Constant discussions take place on this subject, and it was fully covered in the report of the Commonwealth Conference.

Mrs. Castle: asked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has made to the Australian Government on behalf of the Lancashire cotton industry with regard to the continued severe restrictions on the import of cotton goods into Australia.

Mr. Mackeson: The difficulties of our textile industries have been stressed in all our discussions with the Commonwealth Government.

Mrs. Castle: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the value to Lancashire of the recent Australian import relaxations? Is he not aware that the main relaxations have been in the field of raw materials for secondary industries instead of in the field of textiles and other consumer goods? Is it a fact that cotton textiles stand to benefit only by about £2 million?

Mr. Mackeson: I should like to have notice of the last part of the question. This is a matter for the Australian Government, upon which they must use their own discretion in view of their balance of payments situation. We are aware, naturally, of the anxiety of everybody in this country to sell as many textiles as we can to the Australian market.

Mrs. Castle: Is not this another example of the failure to use the opportunity of the Commonwealth Conference to get a proper balance of production and trade between this country and the other Commonwealth countries?

Mr. Mackeson: I am sorry, but I cannot join with the hon. Lady in criticising the administration of an independent Government

New Textile Machinery

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the President of the Board of Trade how much was expended in re-equipping British textile mills with new machinery in the last complete year before the abolition of initial allowances, and in a comparable period of 12 months since then.

Mr. H. Strauss: Deliveries of textile machinery to the home market during the 12 months ended 31st March, 1952,

amounted in value to £34½ million. Deliveries during the six months ended the 30th September, 1952, were at an annual rate of £262/3 million.

Mr. Hynd: In view of the heavy unemployment prevalent in the textile machinery making industry and the fact that the initial allowances were removed at a time of full employment, would the Parliamentary Secretary try to convince the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a restoration of the initial allowances might be a contribution towards reducing unemployment in that industry?

Mr. Strauss: In view of the fact that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer heard what the hon. Gentleman said, I do not think any communication will be necessary.

Exports to China

Mr. Rankin: asked the President of the Board of Trade what items on the list which the China National Import-Export Board wished to purchase in this country and which was submitted to the Board of Trade on 2nd October, 1952, were refused a licence for export; and why.

Mr. Mackeson: It is not possible without research to identify particular applications for export licences as relating to orders placed by the China National Import-Export Board. I can say, however, that of the items in this list, which was circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT Of 10th February in reply to a Question by the hon. Member, all but half-a-dozen would be refused export licences, either under the embargo imposed on certain exports to China in accordance with the United Nations Resolution of May, 1951, or, in a few cases, because the goods are scarce and we need them for our own use.

Mr. Rankin: Can the Minister tell us why the number of items on the list of goods which may not be exported to China has increased so much during the past year? Is he not aware that the list now greatly exceeds that suggested by the United Nations organisation in the Resolution to which he refers?

Mr. Mackeson: I could not accept that statement without looking into the matter. Broadly speaking, these are


strategic goods which both this Government and the previous Government agreed not to export.

Mr. Rankin: Is the Minister not aware that in many cases these goods which we refuse to export are being supplied to China from within the Commonwealth? Is he aware that Manila rope is an example of what I mean.

Mr. Mackeson: We are not exporting Manila rope because we need it ourselves. The refusal in that case is not for strategic reasons.

Mr. Bottomley: Are we able to get from China the goods which we require?

Mr. Mackeson: No, Sir. There are quite a number of things which we cannot get.

Canned Sild

Captain Pilkington: asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of small herrings, canned sild, imported into this country in 1938, 1950, 1951 and 1952.

Mr. Mackeson: Imports of canned sild in 1950, 1951 and 1952 were 64,769 cwt., 28 cwt. and 7 cwt., respectively. Imports under this heading in 1938 were not separately recorded in the trade statistics.

Copyright (Collecting Society Fees)

Mr. J. Hudson: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to implement the recommendation of the Copyright Committee that the tariffs payable to collecting societies of a monopolistic or quasi-monopolistic character should be subject to independent review.

Mr. H. Strauss: Legislation would be required to give effect to this recommendation. All the recommendations in the Report are being carefully considered.

Mr. Hudson: In the consideration given to this matter, will the Board of Trade take into account the fact that the gramophones which are played at shows, and meetings and on other occasions, have an extremely high fee charged upon them, fees which are described in the Copyright Report as arbitrarily imposed? As the Copyright Report suggested that there

should be a review of these fees, can nothing be done about it in the meantime before legislation is introduced?

Mr. Strauss: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is an important recommendation, but it would require legislation. All the recommendations of the Report are being carefully considered. I dare say the hon. Member will recall that there are no fewer than 67 principal recommendations in the Report.

NATIONAL FINANCE

Foreign Currency Allowance

Mr. Jay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the foreign exchange allowance for United Kingdom tourists travelling outside the sterling area in the course of the present year.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): The basic travel allowance was fixed at £25 for the year beginning 1st November, 1952. I have no further statement to make.

Mr. Jay: As the plans of a great number of people depend on this, is there any reason why the Chancellor should not make up his mind reasonably soon?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): Is the right hon. Gentleman planning his holidays as early as this?

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in addition to individuals, the tourist agencies, too, have to make arrangements? Is he aware that a situation in which they were informed only about two weeks before the currency allowance came into operation last year is quite unsatisfactory from all points of view?

Mr. Butler: In answer to my hon. Friend, the position which this Government inherited was so serious that he should not have been surprised by any action of that sort.

Mr. H. Morrison: I am not on the merits of the question. May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to be unduly influenced in this matter by the Prime Minister who has already had a very nice holiday and who ought not to be selfish at the expense of ordinary citizens? I am not on the merits, but


may I ask the Chancellor whether people are not entitled to know this information? Many people have to make arrangements now for their holidays. Cannot the Chancellor say whether or not any change in the allowance is to be made? Surely the public are entitled to know one way or the other so that they may make their arrangements accordingly.

Mr. Butler: I have nothing further to add to my answer, namely, that I have no statement to make, but that does not mean I do not understand the great difficulties under which people are labouring. The situation is that, as it applies to foreign countries, representatives of certain countries have already visited us and talked it over with us.

Mr. Morrison: Does that mean, or does it not, that the right hon. Gentleman has the matter under consideration? If he has the matter under consideration, can he give some indication as to when he will be able to answer the Question put by my right hon. Friend?

Mr. Butler: The right hon. Gentleman may realise that, being on top of my job, I have all these matters under consideration all the time. When I have a statement to make I will make a statement.

Mr. Gaitskell: Will the Chancellor treat both the House and the country with rather more courtesy in this matter? Does he realise that there are a great many people who want to know what the allowance is going to be as soon as possible, and will he, perhaps, consider telling the House, say, before we rise for the Easter Recess, what the allowance is likely to be?

Sir W. Smithers: To Russia?

Mr. Butler: I have no intention whatever of being bullied or badgered by the right hon. Gentleman. He has accused me of lack of courtesy to the House, but what the right hon. Gentleman is trying to do now is to push me into making a statement when I do not propose to make one. The initiative arose simply through a perfectly legitimate Question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), which I answered by saying that I have no statement to make. No bullying of any sort will make me make a statement.

War Damage (Late Claims)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if an individual is entitled under his regulations to the extra statutory wartime concession relating to time limits notified in Command Paper No. 6559 if he shows that the failure to lodge a notice of loss within the prescribed period of 12 months was due to disorganisation resulting from the bombing of his office premises;
(2) whether the Commissioners of Inland Revenue are entitled under his regulations to discriminate as between one taxpayer and another in the application of extra statutory wartime concession relating to time limits notified in Command Paper No. 6559;
(3) whether, under his regulations, there is any right of appeal to the general commissioners from a refusal by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to grant an application under the extra statutory wartime concession relating to time limits notified in Command Paper No. 6559.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The first two Questions can only be answered against the background of a particular case, and the answer to the third Question is No, Sir. If my hon. Friend will give me particulars of any case which he has in mind, I will cause inquiry to be made and communicate the results to him.

Mr. Erroll: Does the Chancellor realise that I am grateful to him for his helpful reply?

Local Authority Members (Allowances)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the rate of compensation for loss of remunerative time made to persons who serve as members of tribunals and committees under various Acts of Parliament has not been changed for some years; that this compensation should be increased in a manner comparable to the increased cost of living; and if he will take steps to increase it accordingly.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I am looking into this question in consultation with the other Departments concerned.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer agree that persons who give their services in this way should not be put to any financial loss, and will he take steps to ensure that that is so?

Mr. Butler: I am aware of the services rendered by these persons. That is why the question is being looked into.

Mr. Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman include Scotland in his inquiry?

Mr. Butler: I should not be likely to forget Scotland, but that is a question for the Secretary of State.

Public Service Salaries

Miss Ward: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many points the salary rates for women in the Civil Service, teachers and local government service rose between December, 1951, and 1952; and what were the comparable figures for men in the same professions.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I can give my hon. Friend only the percentage increases. Between December, 1951, and 1952, Civil Service rates for both men and women were generally increased by 10 per cent. on the first £500 of pay, 5 per cent. on the second and 2½ per cent. on the third. I understand that the increase received by women qualified teachers was about 9.5 per cent. at the minimum and 6.4 per cent. at the maximum of the basic scale. Corresponding figures for men were about 10.6 per cent. and 6.4 per cent. No figure can be given for local government staffs generally, but I understand that increases in the basic general and clerical grades for both men and women were about 5 to 6 per cent.

Miss Ward: Will my right hon. Friend agree that increases in certain commodities such as coal, and light and heat, and certain foodstuffs, bear more hardly on women than on men in the Civil Service, in the teaching profession, and in the local government service—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—and will he kindly, therefore, give them the same facilities for meeting those increased costs as he has given in industry, where women's rates have risen higher than the men's?

Mr. Butler: I am aware that there have been certain increases. It is also the fact that for a long time the Government have

held the cost of living down. It is further the case that men feel some of these increases just as much as women.

Mr. Bottomley: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the best way of overcoming all these difficulties would be by granting equal pay at once?

Miss Ward: >: Hear, hear.

Income Tax Rebates

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the estimated loss of tax revenue in the United Kingdom in 1938–39 and in 1950–51 from wives' earned income rebate, from children's rebate, from dependent relatives' rebate and from life assurance rebate, respectively.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): As the reply contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:


—
1938–39
1950–51



£million
£million


Estimated reduction in tax attributable to—Child allowance
15
132


Dependant relative allowance 
1¼
20


Life assurance relief
9
27


Wife's earned income relief
Not available
55

FOOD PRODUCTION (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister, in view of the importance of increasing food production in Britain, if he will publish a full report of his speech to the National Farmers' Union on 17th February as a White Paper.

The Prime Minister: It would be unusual to publish speeches in this way, but I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the speech he refers to.

Mr. Hughes: In view of the universal interest amongst farmers, and the gigantic target the Prime Minister set them, could h explain, for the benefit of the farmers,


how they are going to achieve this very elastic target if men are taken away for military service?

The Prime Minister: If I were to attempt to do justice to that question I should be severely straining the usual procedure at Question time.

Mr. Peart: In view of reports of the Prime Minister's speech, will he instruct the Minister of Agriculture to produce a really positive agricultural policy, in view of the absence of one?

The Prime Minister: I think the Minister of Agriculture is doing extremely well. I am sure he does not need to take any advice from the party opposite.

Mr. H. Morrison: The Prime Minister is being very dictatorial.

Mr. Peart: asked the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to improve the organisation of his Government with a view to reaching their recently announced objective of 60 per cent. above pre-war food production.

The Prime Minister: This subject might well be appropriate to a debate on agriculture. No changes are proposed in the organisation of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Peart: Is the Prime Minister aware that, despite his previous answer, there is evidence that agriculture has not had the priority it should have had over the past 12 months, and would he, if the Minister of Agriculture is doing well, put him in the Cabinet, as the Minister of Agriculture was in the previous Administration?

The Prime Minister: I should be very glad to send the hon. Gentleman also a copy of the speech which I delivered, but I really could not undertake to accept his advice as to what Ministers should or should not be members of the Cabinet.

Mr. Baldwin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the most effective steps that can be taken to increase food production is to pass legislation to bring the common land of this country into cultivation to give more food, and, further, will he appoint a commission to go into the question of the 16 million to 17 million acres of rough grazing which exists in Great Britain?

Mr. J. T. Price: When the Prime Minister is considering this matter very fully, would he also consider the statement reported to have been made yesterday by a member of the Cabinet, namely, that economic planning was "all boloney" and either confirm that is his opinion or deny it?

The Prime Minister: I should prefer to have an agreed definition of the meaning of "boloney" before I attempted to deal with such a topic.

ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION (RESEARCH)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will have an investigation made into the amount, and effects, of air pollution over Stoke-on-Trent, Manchester and Stockport, with a view to the preparation of a report, such as that on air pollution in Donora, P.A., United States of America Public Health Bulletin 306, Federal Security Agency.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): Systematic measurements of atmospheric pollution are already being made in these and other towns, and investigations into certain factors are in progress. The results of the Donora report have been studied and are being borne in mind.

Mr. Ellis Smith: If the local authorities make suggestions dealing with this problem will the Minister sympathetically consider them?

Mr. Marples: I should rather like notice of that question.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the miserable sum of only £3,000 has been spent by Government research institutions on the problem of atmospheric pollution, and would he see what more could be done to help research into this problem?

Mr. Marples: My right hon. Friend is making a systematic investigation in the three towns mentioned in the original Question, and I do not think he can do more than that until the report is received.

Mr. Gibson: In view of the serious loss of life in London during the recent fogs, will the Minister speed up to the utmost the inquiries he is making?

Mr. Marples: If a more intensive inquiry is necessary after this report has been received my right hon. Friend will set in motion that intensive inquiry.

HOUSING

Rent Restriction Acts

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if, in view of continuing public anxiety, he will make a statement on the progress of the review he is undertaking of the Rent

NEW DWELLINGS BUILT BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND NEW TOWNS DURING 1952


—
1 bedroom
2 bedrooms
3 bedrooms
4 or more bedrooms
TOTAL


No.
Per cent. of Total
No.
Per cent. of Total
No.
Per cent. of Total
No.
Per cent. of Total


Houses
4,426
3·3
37,973
28·7
86,179
65·0
3,987
3·0
132,565


Flats
7,971
24·2
20,168
61·2
4,247
12·9
555
1·7
32,941


Houses and Flats
12,397
7·5
58,141
35·1
90,426
54·6
4,542
2·8
165,506

People's Houses

Mrs. Castle: > asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what proportion of the houses built by local authorities in 1952 were of the People's House design.

Mr. Marples: >: I regret that it is not possible readily to ascertain how many houses completed in 1952 were People's Houses; but 44 per cent. of the three bedroom traditional houses in local authorities' tenders approved in January, 1952, were People's Houses. By December 1952 the proportion had risen to 79 per cent.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. A. J. Irvine: >: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. May I ask for your guidance and ruling in regard to a Question which I desired to put but which was not accepted by the Table?

Restriction Acts, particularly as affecting smaller properties where the present rents do not cover maintenance expenses.

Mr. Marples: My right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to make a statement.

Types

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what proportion of the houses built by local authorities in 1952 were three-bedroomed houses; and what proportion were two-bedroomed.

Mr. Marples: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT
Following is the statement:
It was addressed to the Foreign Secretary and concerned the objection raised in a court in Germany to an application by counsel for Dr. Naumann to interview his client. The question was rejected on the ground that the matter is sub judice. In my submission, the question of the Foreign Secretary's connection, if any, with the objection taken in the court is not a matter awaiting the adjudication of the court, and, therefore, should not be excluded by the rules. Nor, in my submission, can a Question and answer on this subject prejudice the trial or hearing of the matter. A further consideration that weighs with me is that a Question on this topic is, I understand, being asked today in another place. I should be grateful for your guidance, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: >: The hon. Gentleman was good enough to tell me that he was going to raise this point. The question was, in fact, submitted to me last night. I


made such inquiries as I could, and I understood that both parties to the hearing before the judge of first instance have entered appeals against the judge's decision on the matter, and these appeals are coming on shortly. In those circumstances, I judged that the matter was sub judice. In so far as there is any administrative question involved in the matter, that can be raised when the court has given its decision, and the hon. Gentleman is not prejudiced by the delay. As to the Question in another place, I have no knowledge of the procedure in another place, but they have no rules of order as to Questions such as we have, and I think that before adducing that in argument, the hon. Gentleman should wait and see what reply is given in the other place in regard to the matter.

Mr. S. Silverman: On that point, may I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether you have considered in connection with this matter that the question that is sub judice only arose because of instructions given administratively to the counsel appearing in court. There is no judicial question to determine. It was determined administratively that the right should be denied, and then, on objection by the defence, the court is determining whether or not to uphold the application of the prosecution. I apprehend that what my hon. Friend was asking about was the source of the instructions, that is to say, the withholding of permission in the first place That surely is not sub judice.

Mr. Speaker: In this case both sides have appealed and, therefore, clearly the court must be allowed to come to a decision on this matter first. If, as I say, there is an administrative question in. volved, that can be dealt with later.

AGRICULTURE (AMENDMENT)

3.35 p.m.

Mr. F. J. Erroll: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to dispossession of owners or occupiers of land under the Agriculture Act, 1947.
I wish to secure only a very small amendment of the law by a Bill which is designed to relieve hardship to a cer-

tain class of very small farmers. As hon. Members will know, under the Agriculture Act, 1947, if a farmer is inefficient he may become subject to supervision by his county agricultural executive committee, and if, after a period of supervision, he does not show the necessary degree of improvement a dispossession order can be issued against him by the Minister of Agriculture on the instruction of the executive committee.
He has, of course, a right of appeal to an agricultural land tribunal, but from that tribunal there is no further appeal, except on the very limited sphere of points of law. At least, that is what I am led to understand. However, it is not in regard to the appeal procedure or, indeed, in regard to the workings of the tribunal that my small Bill would be directed. I am concerned with the especial hardship which is caused to some of the very small tenant farmers who are actually living on holdings when they are thus dispossessed, and, for the sake of brevity, I will confine myself to one example, about which I know a considerable amount, concerning one of my constituents.
It is, I think, as most people will agree, a particularly unfortunate case. Mr. Brookes lives with his wife on a smallholding of nine acres, and he produces enough from this holding not only to pay his rent and rates, but to keep himself and his wife. I should add that I have made inquiries of his landlord, who is completely satisfied with his tenant and would be quite content for him to remain in possession of his holding indefinitely.
Mr. Brookes has been recovering from a severe operation, but, nevertheless, the production from his holding is increasing. But this is not good enough for the agricultural executive committee who, having supervised him, have decided that he must go, and have asked the Minister to issue the necessary dispossession order. The irony of the situation is that had Mr. Brookes' nine acres consisted of rose gardens and croquet lawns he would not have been dispossessed, but because he earns his modest living off his land he must go.
He is elderly and he will not find another job very easily. He will have no house to go to, and for him and his wife it will be public assistance and a


futile search for "digs" in a densely populated district. The tribunal have confirmed the decision of the agricultural committee, and the Minister is compelled, therefore, to issue the dispossession order, as he has no powers of discretion in the matter.
My little Bill would prevent dispossession in cases of this kind. Supervision would continue where necessary, but there would be no dispossession of owners or occupiers of agricultural units comprising fewer than 15 acres of agricultural land, provided the owner or occupier was actually resident on the land.
The House may like to have a few figures to show how modest, though genuine, my proposals are. In 1952, 25 occupiers of holdings of fewer than 15 acres were dispossessed, but only seven of those were actually resident on their holdings. If my Bill is passed by the House, and the same situation applies in 1953, only about 45 acres of land would be involved. Last year, although 45 acres of land might have been tilled more efficiently, seven homes were broken up in the process. My Bill would prevent these small dispossessions and, if passed, it could take effect before my constituent is himself dispossessed. I therefore commend my modest Measure to the House, and I hope most sincerely that it will give me leave to introduce the Bill.

3.39 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Hurd: I rise to object to leave being given. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll), while putting his case with disarming charm, as always, is really trying to do too much under the Ten Minutes' Rule procedure. No one wants to inflict the hardship of dispossession in cases which would be of little account in food production. I know that I shall have the House with me when I say that the county agricultural executive committees are practical men. They do not attempt to tackle little patches of weed-infested land unless they are becoming a real nuisance in the neighbourhood, either by spreading weeds or by setting such a bad example as to discourage everyone else.
The Cheshire County Agricultural Executive Committee, which I met during the war, was a first-class committee, and

no doubt it is a good committee today. It consists of 12 members, five nominated as usual by the Minister, three nominated by the National Farmers' Union, two by the County Landowners' Association and two by the workers' trade unions. The committee comprises a good body of practical men who are not likely to bother themselves with something unless it is worth tackling.
I have tried to find out how many cases there may be in the 15-acre group for the whole country. I am told there were only 25 dispossession cases last year, but there are 150,000 agricultural holdings under 15 acres and they total 850,000 acres. We spent last Friday deploring the loss of good, fertile agricultural land. Here are 850,000 acres. Is the House lightly to discard food production from that area as being of no account?
My hon. Friend said that his little Bill would protect only those who are living on their holdings. Nothing is easier than dumping down a caravan or a shack on a piece of empty ground and staking a claim in that manner. We shall be well advised to keep all agricultural holdings within the framework of the Agriculture Act, 1947. Part of the Act provides guarantees in respect of prices and markets and another puts an obligation on the agricultural community to farm properly and imposes a responsibility for self-discipline, and it is in that respect that the committee are concerned. They have a by no means enviable task, but they do it well. In this case, they have decided that the smallholder really was not trying to make the best of his land.
I ask the House not to give leave for the introduction of the Bill. Rather, the House should turn its mind to reviewing the machinery of the Agriculture Act, 1947, to see where, after five years' experience, it needs to be improved. My view is that the good husbandry provisions, and particularly cases of dispossession, should come for final sanction before a court of appeal, and I hope it will not be too long before a Measure on those lines is brought forward. But we must do nothing to undermine the Agriculture Act. I am sure my hon. Friend did not intend to do that in his proposals, but I am afraid that that would be their effect. For this reason, I urge the House not to agree to the introduction of the Bill.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12.

The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Frederick Gough(seated and covered): On a point of order. Is it in order, Sir, for an hon. Member to appear outside the Division Lobby not knowing what the business is and to be pulled by the Tellers into the No Lobby? I saw an hon. and gallant Member who

represents one of the Portsmouth divisions arrive, and he was pulled forcibly into the No Lobby.

Mr. Speaker: Any violence offered to an hon. Member is, of course, out of order. I will inquire into the matter after the Division.

The House divided: Ayes, 65; Noes, 314.

Division No. 106.]
AYES
[3.43 p.m.


Alport, C. J. M.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Odey, G. W.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Hirst, Geoffrey
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Holt, A. F.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Peyton, J. W. W.


Black, C. W.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A


Boyle, Sir Edward
Lambert, Hon. G.
Powell, J. Enoch


Braine, B. R.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Raikes, Sir Victor


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Cranborne, Viscount
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Robson-Brown, W


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E
Linstead, H. N.
Russell, R. S.


Crouch, R. F.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Fell, A.
Longden, Gilbert
Snow, J. W.


Fort, R.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Speir, R. M.


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
McAdden, S. J.
Stevens, G. P.


Gough, C. F. H.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Gower, H. R.
Maclean, Fitzroy
Wade, D. W.


Graham, Sir Fergus
MacLeod, Jahn (Ross and Cromarty)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Grimond, J.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Markham, Major S. F.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Harvey, lan (Harrow, E.)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hay, John
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Mr. Erroll and


Higgs, J. M. C.
Nabarro, G. D. N
Sir Waldron Smithers.


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)





NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Edelman, M


Albu, A. H.
Callaghan, L. J.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Campbell, Sir David
Edwards W. J. (Stepney)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Champion, A. J.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Chapman, W. D.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Fernyhough, E.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C R
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Fienburgh, W.


Awbery, S. S.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Finch, H. J.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Clunie, J.
Fisher, Nigel


Balrd, J.
Cole, Norman
Follick, M.


Baldwin, A. E.
Colegate, W. A
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Balfour, A.
Collick, P. H.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Barlow, Sir John
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Cooper, Sqn, Ldr. Albert
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)


Bartley, P.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Gibson, C. W.


Bence, C. R.
Cove, W. G.
Glanville, James


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Godber, J. B.


Benson, G.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.


Beswick, F.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon H. F. C
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Blackburn, F.
Crosland, C. A. R.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)


Blenkinsop, A.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)


Blyton, W. R.
Cuthbert, W N.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.


Boardman, H
Daines, P.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Bowden, H. W.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)


Bowles, F. G.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hamilton, W. W.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hannan, W.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Deedes, W. F.
Harden, J. R. E.


Brockway, A. F.
Deer, G.
Hardy, E. A.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Dodds, N. N.
Hare, Hon. J. [...]


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hargreaves, A.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E McA
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Donner, P. W.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Brown. Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Drayson, G. B.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A V. (Macclesfield)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Drewe, C.
Hayman, F. H.


Bullard, D. G.
Dugdale Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T (Richmond)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Duthie, W. S.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hewitson, Capt. M.




Hill, Dr Charles (Luton)
Molson, A. H. E.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Hobson, C. R.
Monslow, W.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Holman, P.
Moody, A. S.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Sorensen, R. W.


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mort, D. L.
Sparks, J. A.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Moyle, A.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Hughes Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Mulley, F. W.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Murray, J. D.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Hutchison, Lt..-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Steele, T.


Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Oakshott, H. D.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Oldfield, W. H.
Storey, S.


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Oliver, G. H.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Irving, W J. (Wood Green)
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Stress, Dr. Barnett


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Studholme, H. G.


Janner, B.
Orr-Ewing, Sir lan (Weston-super-Mare)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E


Jay, Rt Hon. D. P. [...]
Oswald, T.
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Jeger, George (Goole)
Padley, W. E.
Swingler, S. T.


Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Paget, R. T.
Sylvester, G. O.


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Jennings, R.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Pannell, Charles
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Parker, J.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Paton, J.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Pearson, A.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Jones, Ja[...]k (Rotherham)
Peart, T. F
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Jones, T. W (Merioneth)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Thornoycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Keenan, W
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Thornton, E.


Kenyon, C.
Popplewell, E.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Porter, G.
Timmons, J


King Dr. H. M.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Tomney, F.


Kinley, J.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Vane, W. M. F.


Lever Leslie (Ardwick)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Vosper, D. F.


Lewis, Arthur
Proctor, W. T.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Profumo, J. D.
Wallace, H. W.


Low, A. R. W.
Pryde, D. J
Watkins, T. E.


Lucas, P. B. (Brantford)
Rankin, John
Webb, Rt. Hon M. (Bradford, C.)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Redmayne, M
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Reeves, J.
West, D. G.


McGhee, H. G.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Wheeldon, W. E.


McGovern, J.
Reid, William (Camlachie)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


McInnes, J.
Remnant, Hon, P.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Ma[...]keson, Brig. H. R.
Rhodes, H.
Wilkins, W. A.


McKibbin, A. J.
Richards, R.
Willey, F. T.


McLeavy, F.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, David (Neath)


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Roper, Sir Harold
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Wills, G.


Manuel, A. C.
Ross, William
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Mayhew, C. P.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Medlicolt, Brig F
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Mellish, R J.
Scott, R. Donald
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Mellor, Sir John
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Messer, F.
Shepherd, William
Yates, V. F.


Mikardo, Ian
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Mitchison, G. R.
Short E. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Hurd and Captain Duncan.

Mr. Speaker: >: Will the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) please renew his complaint?

Mr. Gough: As I came out of the Aye Lobby, I noticed the hon. Gentleman who represents one of the Portsmouth divisions walking into the House. Opposite the entrance to the No Lobby, he was seized by two hon. Members and propelled into the No Lobby. I asked him if he knew what the business was, and he told me that he did not.

Mr. Speaker: >: I understand that the Member involved is the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke). I should like to hear what he has to say.

Brigadier Clarke: I put up no resistance whatsoever, Sir. I should never be put unwillingly into a Lobby into which I did not want to go.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the House will be content to let the matter rest there.

Orders of the Day — IRON AND STEEL BILL

Considered in Committee. [Progress. 23rd February.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair.]

Clause 20.—(IRON AND STEEL REALISATION ACCOUNT AND OTHER FINANCIAL PROVISIONS.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

3.57 p.m

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: The Clause is a complicated one and is the one upon which the financial machinery of and round the Holding and Realisation Agency hinges. In this, as in other instances, the ways of the Treasury are somewhat dark and I suspect that the ways of the Government are somewhat devious.
If it takes me a little time to explain my doubts and ask my questions, I hope the Committee will forgive me. After all, we are dealing with, on any showing, a considerable amount of contemplated expenditure of public money, and it is a matter of considerable importance that we should see exactly what is proposed to be done and how it is proposed to be done.
As I understand, the first three subsections of the Clause deal with money required
for the exercise and performance of …
the Agency's
functions under this Act.
Those words are, of course, very widely drawn and could, as I see it, cover everything which the Agency are empowered to do. But it seems to me—I ask whoever is to reply to confirm or correct this—that the words are used in those first three subsections as distinct from other matters which are dealt with in the three next following subsections.
Broadly speaking, I understand
the exercise and performance of their functions under this Act
to have a comparatively limited intention, whatever the strict meaning of the words may be. The words have appeared, I believe, at only one other point in the

Bill. That is, in Clause 18 (2), where there is a power to
borrow temporarily …for the exercise and performance of their functions under this Act.
Taking all that together and reading the three subsections carefully, I have come to the conclusion, which, of course, is open to correction from the Government, that "the exercise and performance of their functions" here means the day-to-day running of the industry, to use a somewhat abused phrase, and does not apply to the making of large loans or to expenditure in any capital form. I am supported in that by subsection (2), which clearly refers to a separate revenue account, the surplus of which is to be paid out of the Iron and Steel Realisation Account into the Exchequer. There, at any rate, we are clearly dealing with the revenue account, and if one reads the first three subsections together that is the general position.
The first question I should like to ask is whether I am right about that, and the reason I am asking it is that it appears to rest entirely on the consent of the Treasury as to how much is retained for the exercise and performance of the Agency's functions under this Act out of all the money that from time to time accrues to the Agency, and that phrase would clearly cover the proceeds of the sale of any iron and steel securities at all. Therefore, it appears that the Treasury are given an uncontrolled power of deciding how much is to be retained by the Agency, subject only to whatever limitation there may be in the words;
the exercise and performance of …
the Agency's—
functions under this Act.
I suggest to the Financial Secretary that, if those words have that meaning, then the limitation ought to be much more clearly expressed. If those words do not convey any other meaning, then I suggest that the power of retaining an absolutely indefinite amount of money coming into the Agency is far too widely drawn, and would, in fact, leave the Treasury an uncontrolled power of using, for any purpose for which the Agency can disburse money at all, very large sums indeed, including the complete proceeds of any iron and steel securities which they may succeed in selling.
I now come to the next subsection in Clause 20, and here, first of all, we come to another phrase:
to enable them to make any payment or issues falling to be made out of the said Account under this Act.
That seems to me—and, again, I should like to know whether I am right or not—to contemplate an entirely different kind of payment, and to cover loans and large capital transactions about which the Financial Secretary gave us some information yesterday. It is for that purpose that the Treasury are empowered to borrow money as for the National Debt, and to place money into the Iron and Steel Realisation Account. Further, for that purpose, undoubtedly, the proceeds of any sale of iron and steel shares may be used.
We were told yesterday that, of the £150 million, £85 million is for certain commitments by way of loans repayment, and so on, and £65 million is for admittedly uncertain development expenditure. I hope I am right—I may or may not be—but it seems to me that, in addition, there can also be other payments by way of loan and development under the preceding three subsections; at any rate, strictly as they are drawn at present.
I quite appreciate that the Financial Secretary may very well say, "That is not our intention," but, if so, I think that the words used need re-examination, because I believe that at present the proceeds of the sale of shares could be used for the purpose of making a loan and for the purpose of cancelling loans already made and making corresponding advances against them; that is to say, under Clause 17 (2, a) with regard to reorganisation of loan capital, and under Clause 18 (1, a) for making loans to a company a substantial part of whose securities is held by the Agency.
I call the attention of the Committee to what is happening, although I find it a little difficult to follow in detail what was said yesterday by the Financial Secretary about the composition of the £85 million, which, he said, was to be repaid and towards part of which this £150 million was to be used. The Financial Secretary told us that, first of all, there were the F.C.I. loans, and that these loans were about £45 million. I am now referring to the passage at the bottom of column 1860 of HANSARD, and I under-

stand what is intended there. The next phrase, however, I quite fail to understand. On the fourth line of column 1861, we read:
The sum of £20 million is in respect of loans from publicly-owned companies to the Corporation which is now being extinguished."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1953; Vol. 511, c. 1861.]
No doubt we shall have an explanation, but I do not understand it. I do not know the basis or extent of any such loan, and I fail completely to see what the purpose of it is. Moreover, the Iron and Steel Corporation, in their last Report and statement of accounts—it is the last one, although, of course, now rather out of date, and it was for the period ended 30th September, 1951—showed nothing of the sort that I could find, at any rate, in the accounts of the Corporation. Exactly why a publicly-owned company should make loans to the Corporation baffles my limited understanding. On page 56 of the Report and statement of accounts, there is reference to the F.C.I. loans which, at that time, amounted to just under £40 million, and no doubt now correspond to the £45 million which was the figure given by the Financial Secretary yesterday.
Then I notice a figure of £20 million, but it is not in respect of loans from publicly-owned companies to the Corporation. It is something entirely different—loans from the public to certain publicly-owned companies—John Summers and Sons is one and the Steel Company of Wales is another—and both these loans together amount to £20 million. It is perhaps significant that one of them is not repayable until 1957, and the other not until 1975. Therefore, it seems to me difficult to understand why provision has to be made for repayment to the public of those loans unless, of course, the Government consider that it will take until 1975 to sell the iron and steel shares to the public. That argues a degree of pessimism on the part of the Government which they have not yet made public. I really do not understand that £20 million.
Still less do I understand the further £20 million which may be required as a result of anticipated overdrawing by the Corporation. That puzzles me. After all, the Corporation is now being extinguished, as the Financial Secretary said yesterday. It is a lively corpse if it suc-


ceeds in overdrawing £20 million from its place of extinction. I should like further explanation of how this somewhat metaphysical performance is to be carried out.
I feel a real sense of confusion from all this. Let me take the F.C.I. advances as an instance. A number have been made but we do not know the interest. Perhaps I had better join them to the two lots of public debentures, the 4 per cent. and 3 per cent. All this is loan money which has been advanced to individual companies. The F.C.I. loans were made to the companies before the 1949 Act and were taken over by Section 14 of that Act. Similarly, the other two public loans were made to individual companies. What is happening is that the Government are proposing, at the same time that they are selling back the shares of iron and steel companies, to use up to £150 million of public money, raised, if necessary, on the open market, in order to lend money to the iron and steel industry and to replace the loans made to individual companies.
It may be said, of course, that the F.C.I. is not willing to continue these loans. We were not told that yesterday. All we were told was that it had the right to give six months' notice under Section 14 of the 1949 Act, as undoubtedly it has. I should like to know whether it has given the notice, if there is any reason why it should give notice, or whether the Government have given notice? What risk is there in this matter? As regards the two public loans, I fail to see any reason for repaying them, but perhaps it is not proposed to do so and that there is some other explanation of what the Financial Secretary said yesterday.
4.15 p.m.
By and large we come back to the same point: Why should £150 million of public money be used at the moment for financing this industry and is there no other source available for the purpose? Why, if that is the case, should it be used to repay existing loans unless there is some real reason for supposing that those loans will not be continued?
One has to remember that the F.C.I. is a public company and not wholly immune from some degree of intelligent collaboration with the Treasury. In those

circumstances, this procedure seems even more curious. I call the attention of the Committee to the effect of this. With one hand the Government are selling out iron and steel stock and saying how essential it is in the public interest that this should be restored to private ownership thereby depriving themselves, no doubt, of the power inherent in its ownership, particularly in the equity capital. At the same time, with the other hand, they are bountifully advancing up to £150 million on terms which, so far as I can see, will give them no other voice in the industry than That still small voice which a creditor from time to time still has in our affairs.
I am baffled by the reason for it. I am the more baffled when I consider that some of the shares which the Government, after setting up all this hocus-pocus of machinery, are to sell back to the public, will consist of fixed-interest shares. It is perfectly true that if one looks at the last Report and accounts, the amount of fixed interest and loan capital in these publicly-owned companies has been reduced considerably, but there is still a lot of it. What is the point of selling out to the public a quantity of fixed interest stock and, at the same time, lending to the industry, presumably on fixed interest? These are to be loans to particular companies, not merely to the industry, and it is complicated by the loan-making powers of the Agency.
I feel that all this verges on the tedious, but it is difficult to make it interesting. However, this is a large sum of money and the Bill ought to be clear. It is not entirely my fault if I have misinterpreted it. As I read the Bill, we are empowering the Chancellor of the Exchequer to advance a large sum of money to various privately-owned companies without any check on the wisdom of or the need for those advances in one large lump sum. Even if we include the proceeds of the sale of the iron and steel shares, it is still a large amount and no information is given to Parliament before the expenditure is made. No doubt there will be a report and statement of accounts afterwards, but here we are lending £150 million to a large number of privately-owned companies at the sole discretion of the Treasury as far as I can judge.
This form of machinery seems to me to be unprecedented and I do not think


it is proper that there should be so singularly little check on the need of or wisdom for these advances. I should like whoever is to reply to the debate to tell us what he considers the checks to be.
If I may sum up very shortly, I should like to know if I am right in thinking that the first three subsections deal with revenue expenditure incurred in one way or another on day-to-day work. That is to say, has the phrase
the exercise and performance of their functions under this Act
a limited meaning or not? If it has not, it seems to me to open the door extraordinarily wide to the expenditure of capital assets for revenue purposes, to their expenditure without any Parliamentary control and to what I can only call an exceedingly sloppy way of dealing with the proceeds of sale in this instance. If, on the other hand, it is intended to have a limited meaning, have I understood the limited meaning correctly, and could it not be more clearly and definitely expressed than it is in such a comprehensive phrase?
Secondly, what is the explanation of the two figures of £20 million that we were told about by the Financial Secretary yesterday. I think he must have got his words wrong. No doubt, he will tell us exactly what he meant, and perhaps he could do by reference to the last Report and accounts.
The next point is—and this is surely a question of broad policy—what is the purpose of the Government in putting the iron and steel industry back into private ownership with one hand with a blare of trumpets and a banging of drums, and, at the same time, rather quietly putting in public money on a corresponding scale with the other hand? What political doctrine or other purpose is served by that very remarkable proceeding? Lastly, is not the check on the expenditure of the £150 million unprecedented and insufficient?

Mr. Austen Albu: If my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) found some difficulty in fully understanding the provisions of this Clause, perhaps it is not surprising that some of us who are not learned in the law should also find difficulty.
I want to deal with a substantial point of policy to which my hon. and learned Friend referred in his summing up as his third point. To make my point clear, perhaps I should state the powers and functions, as I understand them, which have been given to the Holding and Realisation Agency. As I understand, first, the Agency may make loans to the iron and steel companies that remain in their ownership. Secondly, the Agency may borrow temporarily for this purpose. Therefore, presumably, they borrow for the making of short-term loans and for loans for what are virtually overdrafts. Thirdly, the Agency may, under Clause 20 (1), retain, with the consent of the Treasury, some of the proceeds of the sale.
Under subsection (2), if the receipts properly chargeable to revenue account for any financial year exceed the outgoings, they must be paid to the Exchequer. My hon. and learned Friend tried to find out what "revenue account" in this sense meant. I presume it cannot refer to the revenue from the sales of the assets, for that surely could not be in the revenue account. I can only presume that it refers to the dividends received from the operation of the companies. I should like an answer to that question.
Then the Treasury can put into the Iron and Steel Realisation Account for loan purposes up to £150 million for short-term loans, or alternatively it can use the surplus, if there is a surplus in the account, for paying off general national debt. It seems to me to be a highly complicated way of dealing with the capital changes in the accounts that will arise from selling off bits of the Iron and Steel Corporation, and in the income and expenditure account that will arise from operating the companies which are left in their hands. It is further complicated by methods for dealing with the further expansion of the companies that remain in the hands of the Agency.
Yesterday, the Financial Secretary said that the development of the companies remaining in the hands of the Agency would be financed out of the profits which they make and a maximum sum of £5 million would be made available for this purpose. He said:
It is intended to use two sources for development of such companies as remain in


public ownership. One source will be part of the ploughed back profits made from the operations of the company.
I suppose that means "companies" because there are presumably a number of companies. I suppose that what he meant was that each company will retain its own property.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): indicated assent.

Mr. Albu: The hon. Gentleman continued:
The other will be the £65 million."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 23rd February, 1953; Vol. 511, c. 1861.]
I suppose that is the amount which the Treasury may allow the Agency to lend. I hope that is right.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, subject to this. The hon. Gentleman referred to £65 million as a maximum. If the £85 million is also a maximum, the £65 million may not be.

Mr. Albu: The maximum is £150 million?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes.

Mr. Albu: The question upon which I want further elucidation is this. Why does there have to be this Realisation Account at all? Is it because the Chancellor of the Exchequer believes that in some mysterious way he is thereby creating new savings for investment? It is true that when the companies are sold back to private investors or private investing bodies, companies or institutions, they will presumably have to find the finance out of the savings of the community for making that investment for buying the companies. I do not think that this in any way affects the position of the Treasury as the economic stabiliser of the economy or their responsibility for ensuring that the savings in the community as a whole are sufficient.
It looks to me as if the object of this exercise is to cover up this rather extraordinary activity. It may be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer agrees with the people who were referred to in the "Financial Times" on 18th February as those who are challenging the modern orthodoxy, as it is now called, the modern alternative apparently being that

in times of inflation it is not necessary to balance the budget by taxation, and so the Chancellor could reduce taxation.
Is the view of the Chancellor, on the other hand, that our present situation is so deflationary that he need not yield the proceeds of the sale of these capital assets for the redemption of debt? Is it even suggested that he might use the proceeds for other purposes—as this article in the "Financial Times" says, for other purposes of below-the-line expenditure, perhaps defence expenditure or for some other purpose? I agree that at present, as the Bill is drawn, this may not be possible.
4.30 p.m.
It may very well be that it is the right thing to do to use the proceeds, or part of the proceeds, from the sale of these companies, from their profits, the capital revenue as well as the income revenue—if I may put it that way—to make loans for the further expansion of the industry. Equally, it seems to me, the opposite may be the case, and it may be advisable to increase taxation to provide the necessary savings for investment.
These matters could be much more clearly dealt with, and would be much less of a hocus-pocus, if the financing of the development of the steel companies were done by more orthodox methods of direct Treasury loan, or better still—as I happen to believe that many of these companies will remain in public ownership for a very long time—by the raising of long-term stock, which will certainly be much less inflationary. This present method cannot in any way assist in increasing the savings required for this investment for development purposes, and can only have the effect of confusing the issue, which I believe it is intended to do.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will endeavour to answer the points made by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) and the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu). The hon. and learned Member for Kettering asked what checks there were on the expenditure of this money. The two main checks are the responsibility of Ministers to the House and the publication of accounts as provided in this and the following Clause. There are, no doubt others, but those strike me as the main ones.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether the words
exercise and performance of their functions under this Act,
which, as he pointed out, are used in the earlier subsections, were limited or general. The answer, as I thought he himself construed them, is that they are general; and, I submit, appropriately general, because this is, as I shall hope to make clear at a later stage of my observations, largely a banking procedure, and the Realisation Account is very largely the main banking account, as it were, of the Holding and Realisation Agency. In such a relationship the words have to be general or the whole nature of the transaction is vitiated.
He further asked one or two questions about the operations of this account, and, in particular, whether it was proposed to leave substantial sums in the hands of the Agency. The intention is that the proceeds which come into the Agency—that is the capital sums arising from the sale of the companies and the revenue sums which come in as a result of the profits of the companies—shall, in general, be paid into the Realisation Account, and the Agency will only retain in its own hands the comparatively small sums needed for the payment of salaries of staff and administrative expenses. That, I think, reinforces what I said a moment ago, that it seems to me that the appropriate way to look at this Realisation Account is as if it were the main banking account of the Agency.
The hon. and learned Gentleman went on to ask for a little further explanation of the operation of the system. As, from what he said, I think he apprehended, the intention, which I think is made clear in subsection (2), is that, so far as the revenue incomings are concerned—and in this context I can confirm the assumption of the hon. Member for Edmonton that the revenue sums are almost, if not quite. exclusively, the profits of the companies—it is intended that the surplus at the end of the year shall be paid into the Exchequer.
It will be used in the first place, obviously, for the service of debt, either of the old compensation stock or other stock, because it will be appreciated that we are taking over full liability for the service of the old Iron and Steel Stock—now Treasury Stock 1979–81, as provided in

the previous Clause. Therefore, in the first place, provision has to be made for the service of that or equivalent stock. That is the way it will operate. Subsection (4), as the hon. and learned Gentleman rightly apprehended, is mainly in contemplation of large capital transactions.
He then asked a number of questions about the figures involved, and in particular, about the figure I gave to the Committee last night for the liabilities which would be involved, and which amount in all, as I then said, to the sum of £85 million. The break-down of that £85 million, in round figures is substantially as I gave it last night. Forty-five million pounds are F.C.I. loans. He asked if the F.C.I. had given notice under the 1949 Act to demand repayment.
The answer is that, so far at any rate, they have not done so. It is equally clear that in making financial arrangements for the transfer of these enterprises to the Agency it is proper to take that liability into account, and it would, indeed, be extraordinarily rash and foolish not to do so in computing the total figure.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: As the F.C.I. was specifically set up with the intention of providing capital for large-scale private industry, it would be very extraordinary if the F.C.I., having allowed the money to go on, rather surprisingly perhaps when the industry was publicly owned, demanded its repayment when returned to private ownership.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: When the hon. Gentleman conducts, as I am sure he will at one time, financial enterprises of great magnitude, he will not allow arguments of that sort to prevent him from making proper provision for a liability which could arise at six months' notice. It would obviously be extraordinarily foolish not to make that provision merely on a guess or gamble on the probabilities of the action of a third party.

Mr. Jenkins: May I finish that point?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think it is finished. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have an opportunity to deploy his views in due course. So far as I am concerned, that particular item is complete, and to preserve the coherence of


my argument I should like to deal with the other items in the £85 million.
The next item was £20 million of loans from the companies to the Corporation. The position is—as I indicated with perhaps undue brevity last night—that the companies have lent spare liquid reserves to the Corporation which used them to finance the development of other companies. The companies making those advances will need them back from time to time for their own development, or for use as capital, and it is therefore proper to take that factor into account when, under Clause 1, we are taking over all the liabilities of the Corporation. The final item was the sum, in round figures, of £20 million obtained on overdraft by the Corporation, and also used as advances to the companies.
Therefore, the total figure of £85 million which I gave is the potential liability. I use the word "potential" because, as the hon. Member for Edmonton will recall, when he was good enough to allow me to interrupt him earlier, when he referred to the £65 million as the maximum, I pointed out that it is only the maximum if the full £85 million is demanded. I do not say that it will necessarily be essential to make that provision in fact, but it certainly is necessary to cover it as a possibility.

Mr. Mitchison: We were told yesterday that £20 million was the anticipated overdrawing. It was not an existing over-draft.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The relevant figure will be the one at the moment of take-over. It would be wrong to take a figure today when the take-over has not taken place. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman agrees with me.
Then he asked, "Why is it desirable to provide up to £150 million to lend to the iron and steel industry?" The answer is very simple. It is the desire of all of us that the processes either of nationalisation or of denationalisation shall not interfere with the development of the industry. It is within the knowledge of all of us that there is a great need for further development in this industry so that it may be able—I borrow now the approach of the hon. Member for Rother-

ham (Mr. Jack Jones)—to maintain its lead as the best steel industry in the world.
It is, therefore, essential to provide that during the process of transition from public to private ownership there is no interruption of the flow of investment necessary to carry through such development plans as may be desirable. I should have thought that that was ground on which hon. Members on both sides found themselves at one. One must calculate this figure on the basis of two conflicting considerations. Those considerations are the desirability of seeing that development is not handicapped and, equally, the desirability of not asking Parliament for a figure which is absurdly large. Those two considerations which are in some degree conflicting are reasonable. We have to make a forecast on the basis also of the most pessimistic possibility, from our point of view, as to the rate of disposal.
It is in the light of these considerations that we have come to the view that this as a maximum is reasonable. Of course, this is a maximum: it does not mean that it will be spent. There is no reason to fear that the industry will be handicapped in its development.

Mr. Mitchison: Does the Financial Secretary realise that on the explanation of subsection (3) which he gave earlier, it is open to the Treasury to advance to the industry not merely £150 million, or some part of it, but, with trifling exceptions, every penny it receives from the sale of iron and steel shares? It can hand the money to the Realisation Account and the Agency may then advance the whole lot back to the industry. Public property can be sold and the proceeds loaned to the buyer.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In substance, the hon. and learned Gentleman's interjection may be accurate, but I do not see the point that he is trying to make on it. He must apprehend that, at the same time, we have assumed liability for the service to the old iron and steel stock and that unless an equivalent amount of stock is redeemed, as it is intended that it shall be in general, out of the proceeds of the sale of the industry, the Exchequer will have to carry without any compensating factor the increased interest charges on the Budget.
There is, therefore, a good reason for securing that in general moneys obtained on sale are used as the Clause provides for the reduction of debt.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Do I understand that the Financial Secretary is now saying that while the State is, with one hand, selling these previously publicly-owned assets, it will, with the other hand, be acquiring new assets in the industry by lending? When some of this £150 million of public money is lent to a privately-owned, or partly privately-owned company, what sort of security will come into the hands of the Government in respect of the loan?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman corrected himself in mid-flight. This can apply only to a partly privately owned company. From the point of view of security, the usual precautions when public money is lent will be taken. The right hon. Gentleman knows from his own experience that when public money is loaned to private companies perfectly satisfactory techniques have been worked out which provide a high degree of security. I do not think that we need treat this as if it were a sudden and new departure in Government finance. It is one which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have experienced for a good many years. [Interruption.] I do not think that it lies in the mouth of the hon. Member for Rotherham to grumble, as he appears to do, at public investment in this industry. I thought that it was the withdrawal of public investment which he regarded as unsound.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: rose—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am in the middle of an argument.

The Chairman: If the Financial Secretary does not give way, the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. I. O. Thomas) must resume his seat.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am willing to give way to the hon. Gentleman at an appropriate point.

Mr. Thomas: This is the appropriate point.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his frankness. I am trying to deal with the argument put up by one of his hon. Friends who deployed it at adequate though not excessive length. I told the hon. Member for Edmonton that revenue account means, in substance, the moneys accruing from the profits of the companies in public ownership. The hon. Member for Edmonton went to the core of this matter when he asked why we should have this Realisation Account at all. I assure him at once that it has none of the abstruse economic implications which he, and apparently certain people outside, have sought to attribute to it.
It is, in fact, a convenient banking arrangment. We are concerned with the handling of considerable sums of money arising from different sources. We are concerned with dealing in the beginning with the profits of the whole of the industry, among other matters. We are also concerned from time to time with moneys accruing from the sales of different parts of the industry. As a matter of convenience it seems to us that this is a good system. It has the additional advantage, from the point of view of hon. Members, that there being this separate account under the control of the Treasury, accounts have to be prepared and submitted as provided in the Clause. It has that considerable practical Parliamentary and constitutional advantage. In that way it constitutes one of the checks to which the hon. and learned Member for Kettering referred.
I should like to deal with the seeming paradox which one or two hon. Members sought to discuss as to why at the time of a policy of denationalisation further public moneys should be put into this industry. The answer is one which I have already given. We are all concerned to secure that the development of this industry goes on unchecked. I do not want to discuss the past, but it seems to us a pity that the industry was ever nationalised, just as no doubt it will seem to hon. Gentlemen opposite a pity that we are now denationalising it. Those are matters of honestly and strongly held political conviction which perhaps do not concern us specially on this Clause.
The necessity for making this provision for investment in the industry is dictated, not by any theoretical or dogmatic


approach, but the practical necessity of having something in our hands in a period of transition in an industry vital to the economy of this country if there is a great need for development. It would be utterly wrong, whether nationalising or denationalising, if one allowed an interim period during which that process operated to be a period of stagnation. That is the overwhelming justification of these provisions, which are not dictated by any theoretical, dogmatic, ideological or political considerations, but by the simple and very practical necessity of securing continued development of the industry.

Mr. Mitchison: I quite appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has been saying. Do I understand him rightly to say that this industry is to have capital investment at this stage which it cannot get otherwise than by public investment? Is that right?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. and learned Gentleman is less clear in either thought or statement than I habitually find him. The justification for this is that it is necessary, whatever other sources may, and in due course will be, available, to provide that a source of public investment shall be available so that there can he no question of a check to its development. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea (Mr. Jay) thinks that that is what his hon. and learned Friend said, then I would advise him to consult his hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Jack Jones: I have listened with great care to what the hon. Gentleman has told the Committee. Boiled down, does it not mean that it is the Government's intention to carry on one of the greatest virtues of nationalisation, that is, to use the moneys accruing from the lucrative part of the industry to help the weaker and inefficient parts? That was an essential part of our nationalisation programme.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That may be, but that is not the arrangement as I have described it.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I do not think we can allow this Clause to he disposed of quite so easily, because it is the cornerstone of what we suspected earlier was the most scandalous abuse of the

financial arrangements for dealing with £250 million of public money which was ever put before this House. That suspicion is now confirmed by some remarkable admissions from the Financial Secretary. He has had other points to make this afternoon while dealing with this financial Clause, and he has shown all the normal lucidity which we came to expect from him during our debates on last year's Finance Bill, with today a little bombast which we did not experience then.
He has given us no indication, however, that he has considered the whole financial structure which is being enshrined in this Clause, and in answering particular points he has shown no indication that he has considered the matter as a whole and not merely in relation to certain detailed points. We should look at the position and see what we should be doing by passing Clause 20.
The position is that the Holding and Realisation Agency has most remarkable powers, and attempts to restrict those powers have been resisted by the Government. They can completely change the capital structure of the industry, the equity capital of which can be sold, leaving the fixed interest capital under public control. They can sell the more profitable private companies and leave the less profitable companies under public control.
There is no guarantee, however, that the money which is received for selling even the most profitable companies will be used to reduce the public liability which already exists in the iron and steel industry. There is nothing to prevent a position in which the more profitable companies will be sold, and the money obtained by selling off the securities of these companies may not be paid into the Treasury to redeem debt, but may be lent by the Agency to the less profitable companies which remain partly in public hands. The money could be lost by these companies and there would be nothing we could do about it. The hon. Gentleman does not give us any guarantee against a position such as that.
The extraordinary thing, so far as we can see at the present time, is that so far as concerns the sum of up to £250 million which may be raised by selling off parts of the industry, and the other sum of £150 million, less certain specific


liabilities which have to be met, part of the privately-owned iron and steel industry will, after denationalisation, be able to get public money far more easily—with less need for the sanction of this House—than the wholly nationalised industries.
If the Financial Secretary does not deny that—and he has not so far—is it not a very extraordinary state of affairs that we are passing back the profit from this industry into private hands, and yet we are making it easier for it to get public money than will be the case with gas, electricity or other publicly-owned under-takings.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Will the hon. Member tell the Committee how the Electricity Authority, or the Gas Council for that matter, comes within the control of this House in the matter of new issues of capital? Is it not a fact that recently the Electricity Authority wanted £150 million, and that it did not come anywhere near this House for it? It went through the usual process of applying to the Capital Issues Committee.

Mr. Jenkins: It went to the market. And why, therefore, cannot the privately-owned steel industry not go to the market and get money there?

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member is confusing two issues. What he said earlier was that the nationalised industries had to come to this House for sanction to raise this capital. [HON. MEMBERS:."He did not."] That is exactly what he said. In fact, they do nothing of the kind..All the nationalised industries do is to apply to the Capital Issues Committee for permission to raise the money required, and then they go to the market for the funds required.

Mr. Jenkins: The hon. Member should have listened more carefully. I did not say anything of the sort. What I did say was that it was possible under this arrangement—and the Financial Secretary did not deny it, and if it is not true I should very much like to hear him deny it—for the privately-owned iron and steel industry to get public money more easily than the publicly-owned nationalised industries can get it. There is no denying that at all, and that seems to me a most extraordinary state of affairs.
I would suggest to the Financial Secretary that, instead of looking at the detailed points, which he is very clever in replying to, he should consider the whole position, and he would see as a Treasury Minister that that is a most scandalous state of affairs. The position is that if we allow this provision to go through we are going to have in the iron and steel privately-owned industry a great deal of public money and a great deal of public risk.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: I have listened to the very interesting and revealing debate, and I think it is generally accepted that this Clause is the crux of the Bill. Fortunately for the Committee and for the country, we have now a little more information which enables us to go behind the scenes. I myself put some questions to the Minister about the real meaning of the Clause and the Government's intentions about it. The Minister says that the Treasury will utilise their powers under this Clause in connection with the moneys which are paid into the Realisation Account from the sale of some of these holdings by the Holding and Realisation Agency.
5.0 p.m.
A national liability was created whereby those who were bought out of the iron and steel industry received certain Government securities at a fixed rate of interest. One would think that in the process of selling out this industry under the powers granted by the Government in this Bill, those proceeds would be devoted to the liquidation of those specially created national bonds which were utilised for buying out the former owners. But when we read the wording of Clause 20 (7), doubts are immediately stimulated as to the intention of the Government about what the Treasury shall do with those funds paid into the Realisation Account on the sale of the iron and steel concerns.
Subsection (7) says:
Any Government securities from time to time coming into the hands of the Agency shall be transferred to the Treasury or to such nominees as the Treasury may appoint. and shall be cancelled or shall be applied by the Treasury in such manner as the Treasury think fit in redeeming or paying off debt of such description as they think fit.
The question arises to what part of the National Debt other than the iron and steel issues those moneys are to be


applied. Are they to be utilised as part of a general liquidation process of any part of the National Debt or strictly—as in my opinion they should be—applied to the liquidation of those bonds specially issued for the purchase of the former holdings of the industry? The Financial Secretary has done nothing to clear up that point. It was specifically put to him from these benches. During the whole of his reply, he has not faced the question of what is to be done by the Treasury with these finances which come into their hands from the sale of the present nationally-owned iron and steel concerns.
He has done nothing to reply to another point. The Agency will put on the market, or make it known that there is on the market, presumably, any part of the present nationally-owned undertakings. What will be competed for in the market are those parts which look the most prosperous, leaving in the hands of the Agency those parts which are the least prosperous. Presumably that is one of the conditions which are causing the Government to set up this special fund by which the Agency may utilise certain sums for granting loans to certain parts of the industry.
As was made plain by my colleagues, those loans made by the Agency will inevitably be directed to the least prosperous existing parts of the iron and steel industry. I presume that immediately the Agency starts operations the more prosperous parts of the industry will be gradually liquidated by being put on the market and sold. The Financial Secretary has entirely failed to face these vital, fundamental issues. He has made it clear, if it needed to be made clear, that the whole financial structure behind the Bill is merely a large lump of Tory hocus-pocus.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not know whether the last part of the observations of the hon. Member call for a reply, although no doubt they gave him great

satisfaction, but I should like to deal wit' subsection (7). I have dealt with it before but the hon. Member has asked me to do so again, and if I have to inflict the explanation on the Committee he must share responsibility with me.

The position with regard to the redemption of debt under subsection (7) is that the moneys will not necessarily be used for the redemption of old stock but for the redemption of such parts of the National Debt as it is in the interests of the taxpayer at the time to redeem. It would be quite arbitrary and artificial to tie the money to one particular stock. It has to be tied to the redemption which in the best interests of the nation.

I really rose to reply to the excitement of the hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), who worked himself into a state of great indignation as well as. indulging in what I might call the Old Bailey technique of challenging me to deny something or other. The particular point was his declamation on several occasions that no nationalised industry could borrow as easily from the public as would steel companies which were partially privately owned. That was the burden of what in this context I may describe as his song.

The hon. Member appears to have overlooked one or two things. In the first place, the Colonial Development Corporation, in precisely the same way as the Agency will be able to do, can borrow from the Consolidated Fund to lend to private firms. If the hon. Member wants another and more conspicuous example it is the position of the National Coal Board, which can borrow from the Consolidated Fund just like this without Parliamentary control. I do not recall that when the Coal Industry Nationalisation Bill went through the hon. Member protested very strongly.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes. 269:Noes, 244.

Division No. 107.]
AYES
[5.8 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Beach, Maj. Hicks


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Astor, Hon. J. J.
Beamish, Maj. Tufton


Alport, C. J. M.
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Baldwin, A. E.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Banks, Col. C.
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Barber, Anthony
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)


Arbuthnot, John
Barlow, Sir John
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Baxter, A. B
Birth, Nigel




Bishop, F. P.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Odey, G. W.


Black, C. W.
Hay, John
O'Neill, Phellm (Co. Antrim, N.)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Bossom, A. C.
Heald, Sir Lionel
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Heath, Edward
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)


Braine, B. R.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Osborne, C.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Peake, Rt Hon. O.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Perkins, W. R. D


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Peyton, J. W. W.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Holland-Marlin, C. J.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Hollis, M. C.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Pitman, I. J


Bullard, D. G.
Holt, A. F.
Powell, J. Enoch


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L


Burden, F. F. A.
Horobin, I. M.
Profumo, J. D.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Raikes, Sir Victor


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Rayner, Brig. R


Campbell, Sir David
Hurd, A. R.
Redmayne, M.


Carr, Robert
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Channon, H.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Renton, D. L. M.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Robertson, Sir David


Cole, Norman
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Colegate, W. A.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Robson-Brown, W.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Jennings, R.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Roper, Sir Harold


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Russell, R. S.


Cranborne, Viscount
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Kaberry, D.
Sandys, Rt, Hon. D.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Keeling, Sir Edward
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Crouch, R. F.
Kerr, H. W.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Lambert, Hon. G.
Scott, R. Donald


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Lambton, Viscount
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Shepherd, William


Davidson, Viscountess
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Deedes, W. F.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Digby, S. Wingfield
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Linstead, H. N.
Soames, Capt. C.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Donner, P. W.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Speir, R. M.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Drayson, G. B.
Longden, Gilbert
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Drewe, C.
Low, A. R. W.
Stevens, G. P.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Duthie, W. S.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Storey, S.


Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
McAdden, S. J.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Studholme, H. G.


Fell, A.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Finlay, Graeme
McKibbin, A. J.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Fisher, Nigel
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Teeling, W.


Fletcher-Cooke, C
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Fort, R.
Maclean, Fitzroy
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Foster, John
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Turner, H. F. L


Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Turton, R. H.


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Gammans, L D.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Vane, W. M. F.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Vosper, D. F.


Glyn, Sir Ralph
Markham, Major S. F.
Wade, D. W.


Godber, J. B.
Marples, A. E.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Maude, Angus
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Gough, C. F. H.
Maudling, R.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Gower, H. R.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Gridley, Sir Arnold
Mellor, Sir John
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Grimond, J.
Molson, A. H. E.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Harden, J. R. E.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Wood, Hon. R.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Nield, Basil (Chester)
York, C.


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Mr. Wills and



Oakshott, H. D.
Mr. Richard Thompson.







NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Hastings, S
Poole, C. C.


Albu, A. H.
Hayman, F. H
Popplewell, E


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Healy, Cahir (Fermanagh)
Porter, G.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Hewitson, Capt M.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hobson, C. R.
Proctor, W. T.


Awbery, S. S.
Holman, P.
Pryde, D. J.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Pursey, Cmdr. H


Baird, J.
Houghton, Douglas
Rankin, John


Balfour, A.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Reeves, J.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A..J
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Bartley, P.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rhodes, H.


Bence, C. R.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Richards, R.


Bernn, Hon. Wedgwood
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Benson, G.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Beswick, F.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Blackburn, F.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Janner, B.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Blyton, W. R.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Ross, William


Boardman, H.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Jager, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Bowden, H. W.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Short, E. W.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Brockway, A. F.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Keenan, W.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Kenyon, C.
Snow, J. W.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W
Sorensen, R. W.


Callaghan, L. J.
King, Dr. H. M.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Kinley, J.
Sparks, J. A.


Champion, A. J.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Steele, T.


Chapman, W. D.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Clunie, J.
Lewis, Arthur
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Collick, P. H.
MacColl, J. E.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
McGhee, H. G.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E


Cove, W. G.
McGovern, J.
Swingler, S. T.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
McInnes, J.
Sylvester, G. O.


Crosland, C. A. R.
McLeavy, F.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Crossman, R. H. S
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Daines, P.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Dalton, Rt. Hon H
Mainwaring, W. H.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


de Fraitas, Geoffrey
Manuel, A. C.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Deer, G.
Mayhew, C. P.
Thornton, E.


Delargy, H. J.
Mellish, R. J.
Thurtle, Ernest


Dodds, N. N.
Messer, F.
Timmons, J.


Donnelly, D. L.
Mikardo, Ian
Tomney, F.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Mitchison, G. R.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Monslow, W.
Viant, S. P.


Edelman, M.
Moody, A. S.
Wallace, H. W.


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Morgan, Dr H. B. W.
Watkins, T. E.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Morley, R.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Weitzman, D.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Morrison. Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mort, D. L.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Moyle, A.
West, D. G.


Fernyhough, E.
Mulley, F. W.
Wheeldon, W. E


Fienburgh, W
Murray, J. D.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Finch, H. J.
Nally, W.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Follick, M.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Wigg, George


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Willey, F. T.


Freeman, John (Watford)
Oldfield, W. H.
Williams, David (Neath)


Gaitskell, Rt, Hon. H. T. N.
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Gibson, C. W.
Orbach, M.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Glanville, James
Oswald, T.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Padley, W. E
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Paget, R. T.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Paling, Will T (Dewsbury)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Pannell, Charles
Wyatt, W. L


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Pargiter G. A.
Yates, V. F.


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Parker, J.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K


Hamilton, W. W.
Paton, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hardy, E. A.
Pearson, A.
Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Hannan.


Hargreaves, A.
Peart, T. F.



Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Plummer, Sir Leslie

Clause 21.—(ANNUAL REPORT AND ACCOUNTS OF AGENCY AND FURNISHING OF INFORMATION.)

Mr. G. P. Stevens: I beg to move, in page 17, line 22, at the end, to insert:
Provided that no person shall be qualified to be so appointed unless he is a member of one or more of the following bodies:

The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales;
The Society of Incorporated Accountants and Auditors;
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland:
The Association of Certified and Corporate Accountants;
The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland.
In moving this Amendment I have only one thing to add to the remarks I made when moving a similar Amendment to Clause 14. On that occasion I suggested that my professional colleagues North of the Border had been more backward than their colleagues in this country in establishing faculties in accountancy. I was misinformed in that respect. Scotland beat us to it by more than 30 years, and I take this opportunity of offering a full and unqualified apology.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. A. R. W. Low): I hope that the Committee will accept this Amendment on the same understanding as they accepted the Amendment to Clause 14. My right hon. Friend asked me to assure the Committee that we would reconsider it before the next stage of the Bill. We are in the middle of such reconsideration.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22.—(COMPENSATION TO OFFICERS AND SERVANTS OF COMPANIES.)

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I beg to move, in page 18, line 5, to leave out from the second "of," to the end of line 7, and to insert:
the duty imposed on the Agency by.
I hope it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I refer also to a subsequent Amendment, in page 18, line 10, dealing with the officers and servants of the Iron and Steel Corporation.
The Bill provides for compensation for employees of iron and steel companies

who suffer loss as the result of groupings or regroupings by the Holding and Realisation Agency. It has been pointed out that the compensation under the 1949 Act is for loss resulting from nationalisation generally. Although we believe that amalgamations are likely to be almost the only cause of loss resulting from de-nationalisation, nevertheless we think it right to bring the Bill into line with the 1949 Act, because we do not want to be less generous than the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss).
The second Amendment relates to compensation for officials and employees of the Iron and Steel Corporation. This was not referred to in the original draft because the period of their service has been too short to qualify them for compensation under any of the Regulations so far issued. The possibility of bringing the employees of the Corporation within the scope of compensation regulations which may in due course be issued should not be excluded in advance. If any further information is required I shall be glad to give it.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: A short but comparatively important point arises on one of the two Amendments which we are considering and, in another application, arises on the Clause itself in several places. There are words used which are now common form in Clauses of this kind to describe people who are affected by a Measure because they stand under some circumstances to suffer loss of employment, emoluments or pension rights. It struck me that something was missing from the Clause as compared with some previous occasions.
In a previous incarnation in this House I followed very closely the discussions upon the then Electricity Bill in 1947. The words are used there in a rather fuller form, because that Act now says:
being officers who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments or pension rights.
The following words, which were used in the Electricity Act, have been omitted on this occasion:
or whose position is worsened in consequence of the vesting,
or the operation of the Act. I concede that such words did not appear in our own Iron and Steel Bill but there is reason why we are raising the matter today.
I understand that the General Council of the Trades Union Congress are interested in having these words, which were in two nationalisation Acts I have mentioned, put in again. It is possible for a situation to arise with professional and technical employees that they lose nothing of their material reward but lose a good deal in status and in hope of professional advancement. We shall be interested to know how the right hon. Gentleman reacts to the suggestion that these words I have mentioned might be put in the Bill.

Mr. Sandys: I expected that some hon. Member would raise this point. I know there was considerable discussion at various times between the late Government and the General Council of the T.U.C. in regard to the phrasing of these compensation clauses. That is not a breach of confidence because it appeared in T.U.C. reports on two occasions. We gave careful thought whether these words should be included, but we feel that they are vague and give rise to uncertainty. The reason they were introduced into the Transport Bill is, I understand, that there is a fairly long history touching this matter in regard to transport legislation. Once a phrase has been included in an Act it is exceedingly hard to take it out, be the Government of the day Labour or Conservative—although they may regret that the words were originally included.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) is present, because I would remind the Committee of what he said when, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply, he took part in the discussions on this particular point on the occasion of the nationalisation Bill. He was explaining to the Committee why the late Government decided not to include these particular words. The matter was raised then in very much the same way as this afternoon, and the hon. Gentleman based his reply on the Gas Act, which had been passed shortly before, and in which these words had not been included.
We have included in this Clause precisely the same words as were included in the 1949 Measure, so that it stands on all fours with that Measure so far as the scope of compensation claims are concerned. The hon. Member for Rotherham said:

In using the words loss or diminution of emoluments' in that Clause we are following the precedent of the Gas Act. Prolonged consideration was given by the Government to the proper phrasing necessary to deal with the compensation provisions of the Bill. It is however possible that the words loss or diminution of emoluments' may not cover all the cases which may arise. In cases not completely covered by the Clause where serious hardship can be proved to have arisen out of the nationalisation of the industry, my right hon. Friend will expect the Iron and Steel Corporation and the publicly owned companies to act as all good and sympathetic employers would, and to make proper arrangements with the trade unions and other bodies concerned for consideration of all such cases."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th May, 1949; Vol. 464. c. 1504–5.]
5.30 p.m.
I wish to act in exactly the same way as did the hon. Member for Rotherham and his right hon. Friend on that occasion. I shall expect the companies concerned, whether still in the Agency's ownership or not, to act just as sympathetically and generously on denationalisation as the hon. Member for Rotherham expected them to act on nationalisation. I can assure the Committee that the Government and the Agency will use their influence to ensure that this moral obligation is fully and faithfully carried out. I hope that will meet the point raised by the hon. Member.

Mr. Mitchison: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the existence of this Clause and the direction to him to make regulations under it regarding payments by the Agency would not in any way prevent the exercise of that discretionary generosity by the companies concerned?

Mr. Sandys: I am quite sure it would not.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: We understand there have been some discussions between the Minister and representatives of the T.U.C. on the question of compensation. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that, with the possible exception of the point raised just now by my hon. Friend, the requests made by the T.U.C. are broadly satisfied, or is the matter still under discussion, and that we can raise it again on the Report stage? Can he also indicate whether the requests made by the T.U.C. have been met in full or in part by the drafting of this Clause, taken together


with the Amendment, apart from the disagreement which has arisen over the wording referred to by my hon. Friend?

Mr. Sandys: I do not like to make public the results of private consultations, but I am sure the T.U.C. would not object if I replied to the right hon. Gentleman's question. Apart from the point raised by the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer), I am assured that the Clause, as amended, meets the desires of the T.U.C. The Amendment which I have introduced was designed to meet a point raised by the T.U.C. in discussions I had with them.

Amendment agreed to.

(4) Where it appears to the Minister that the exercise of powers under this subsection is necessary for the enforcement by the Board of any requirement imposed under section five of this Act or the enforcement by the Board or the Minister of any determination under section seven of this Act, the Minister may authorise in writing such person as may be specified in the authority to exercise those powers in relation to the undertaking of any iron and steel producer so specified, and thereupon that person shall have the right, on production, if so required, of a duly authenticated document showing his authority, to inspect at any reasonable hour, at the premises where they are kept, books, records and other documents relating to the undertaking. but no; including any books, records or documents solely relating to activities other than the production or sale of iron and steel products; and it shall be the duty of the person in charge of any premises where such books, records and documents are kept to produce them for inspection and to provide facilities at the premises for the taking of copies thereof and the making of extracts therefrom by the person carrying out the inspection.


(5) If any person fails to comply with the last preceding subsection, or in any way obstructs the exercise of rights under that subsection, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or, in the case of a second or subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds; and, if any default or obstruction in respect of which any person is convicted under this subsection is continued after the conviction, he shall be guilty of a further offence punishable as aforesaid.

This Amendment deals solely—and I desire to emphasise that it deals solely—with the enforcement of the Board's requirements under Clause 5 with regard to development, and enforcement of the Board's determination under Clause 7 with regard to prices. I can perhaps best explain the purpose and object of this Amendment and its operation by taking, first, the case where the Board have made a determination of prices and where a report has reached the Board to the effect that some company has not complied with that determination in that it has exceeded the maximum price laid down for a particular class of product.

It is obviously desirable that when that report is received by the Board it should be investigated, and, for the purpose of investigation, it may be desirable that some properly authorised person should see the invoices, documents and books of the producer relating to that particular

Further Amendment made: In page 18, line 10, at end, insert:
(c) persons who are officers or servants of the Iron and Steel Corporation of Great Britain immediately before the appointed day and suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments or pension rights in consequence of any provision of this Act.—[Mr. Sandvs.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 23 to 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27.—(ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS BY INJUNCTION.)

The Solicitor-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I beg to move, in page 21, line 45, at the end, to insert:

product. One object of this Amendment is to secure that such an investigation can take place in an appropriate case. The investigation can only take place where it appears to the Minister to be necessary, and then, under this Amendment, he has to authorise someone to make the investigation and to inspect the books, records and other documents.

But, as the Committee will see, that inspection of books, records and other documents does not extend as far as authorising or enabling an inspection of books and other documents relating solely to activities other than the production or sale of iron and steel products. When the Minister has appointed a person to make an investigation under this subsection it will be the duty of the person in charge of the premises where the documents are kept to produce those documents for inspection and to provide facilities for making copies of and extracts from


them. The subsection also provides a penalty for failure to comply with the requirements of the subsection.

I have indicated the extent of this Amendment in relation to the Board's power to determine maximum prices under Clause 7, but the Committee will see that the power given to the Minister to authorise the investigation also extends to cases where a requirement has been made by the Board under Clause 5 in relation to development. It may be thought that that power is not very likely to be used in cases of infringement of the Board's requirement regarding development, because, if development of the magnitude which may be prevented by the Board's decision is taking place, it is most unlikely that the Board would be unaware of that fact, and, indeed, it is perhaps unlikely that the Board would require to inspect invoices and documents in regard to such development.

But we are taking power to make such an investigation because in some cases it may be useful to see what is exactly contemplated in the way of development. So the power under this subsection extends to both these matters in the Bill—the Board's determination of prices and the Board's requirements as to development; and this power is exercisable solely in relation to the enforcement of these two matters. I hope that I have made the scope and application of this Amendment clear to the Committee.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, after "necessary," to insert:
for the performance by the Board of their duty under section three of this Act or.
If I may I will discuss at the same time the following four Amendments to the proposed Amendment—to lines 9, 10 and 14 because they all hang together. They are:
In line 9, after "undertaking," insert "and any property forming part of the undertaking."
In line 10, leave out "or documents," and insert "documents or property."
In line 10, after "to," insert "or used in."
In line 14, at end, insert "and for the inspection of such property."
I am afraid that I have to widen considerably the discussion on the Amendment which the Solicitor-General has moved because this is the only occasion on which we can discuss what we think is a matter of great importance. It is in our view right that the Board should inspect not only the books but the property of the iron and steel makers whenever they feel it necessary to do so in the exercise of the duties imposed upon them under this Bill.
In discussing the Amendment, the Solicitor-General limited himself to the narrow legal aspect of the proposal which he put forward. I invite the Committee to consider the matter from a broader aspect and to accept the view that we regard an Amendment to the Government Amendment as exceedingly important. I also invite the Committee to accept the view that if the Government do not accept our Amendment they are making a farce of the powers and status of the Board as the alleged supervisory body in this industry.
When the Bill was first drafted and brought before the House of Commons, the Minister had in it a simple Clause 13 which to our mind, and I think to the minds of most independent people who considered this matter, was satisfactory. It gave to the Board full powers, for any purpose necessary to them in carrying out any of their duties, to look at the books of any of the companies which came under their control and, if necessary, to inspect the property of any iron and steel producer.
We found, however, that at a later stage the Minister decided to delete that general power of inspection of books and property. Instead, we now find this Government Amendment to Clause 27 whereby books may be inspected for certain purposes. Together with that, we have also a new Clause under which the Minister may ask for certain information, also in certain limited circumstances. The position of the Board, therefore, in finding out what is happening in the industry has been immensely weakened as a result of the changes brought about by the Minister and incorporated in the Bill.
It seems to us a principle to which nobody could object that if a body is to be set up which is to have any authority


whatsoever over the industry to carry out effectively its supervisory duties, the first authority that that body must have is authority to find out exactly what is happening in the industry, to enable it to check any possible abuses and to make comparisons. It must have power to look at any books relevant to its duty and, also, it must have power to inspect any property so as to be sure that its duties are being carried out properly.
5.45 p.m.
Under this Government Amendment the Board may only examine the books of companies which come under their alleged authority if they want to check up development schemes which a company may be proposing under Clause 5, or if they want to check maximum prices. But for no other purpose are the Board entitled to examine the books of a single company that comes within their jurisdiction, and in no circumstances whatever is anybody authorised by the Board entitled to look at any works which come under the authority of the Board.
We say that this bar on the Board, which prohibits them from examining the essential facts which they ought to have in carrying out their duties, makes the position of the Board entirely farcical. Anybody outside the political arena must say that in banning the Board from seeing any works or books which they may require for the purpose, the Government are doing something wholly ridiculous. I do not think that the Government can expect anybody to take the Board very seriously if it is debarred from taking such actions.
We were told that this Bill is being set up in fulfilment of the Government's promise to put the iron and steel industry under public supervision. Later on, when we moved Amendments to ensure that the Board should carry out their duty in the public interest, we were told that it is not their function, that they have not the knowledge and that they cannot carry out the duty of supervision in the public interest. We have been told that only the Government could do that. So there is no public interest element in the activities of the Board.
When it comes to supervision we find that there is very little supervision which

the Board can do. They are not allowed to look at the industry at all. So there is no "public" and precious little "supervision" in this public supervisory Board. Therefore, it is entirely ridiculous and false for the Government to pretend that this Bill carries out the promise which was put in the Gracious Speech from the Throne that this industry would be de-nationalised in such a way that there would be an effective form of public supervision over it. Instead of public supervision, all we have is a limited form of private inquiry.
When we were discussing this matter rather tentatively on an earlier occasion, it was argued by the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown), who is not now in his place, that there is really no need to give to the Board any authority to look at works and to examine them to see what is happening there because, he said, any works or plants will be only too ready to welcome any authorised representative of the Board, and they will show him round and let him see whatever he wants to see. That may or may not be so.
When the Minister first drafted this Bill why did he put into Clause 13 the specific authority—which he has now deleted—for a representative of the Board to visit any property belonging to an iron and steel producer? Presumably that Clause was put into the Bill for some purpose. Why has it now been deleted, so that no authorised servant of the Board has any authority to look at iron and steel works if he is not invited to do so? What pressures have been put upon the Minister to induce him to take away that power, which common sense suggests the Board should have.
What objections can there possibly be to a representative of the Board visiting works to examine the books of companies not only for the two objects specified in this Amendment but for the purpose of carrying out any or all of the duties imposed on the Board by the Bill? We ask the Minister to give us some information why the powers previously afforded to the Board in this respect have been whittled down and why the power to examine works has been removed altogether.
In the first of this series of Amendments we seek to ensure that the authorised agent of the Board should lave authority to look at the books of


any company not only for the purpose of carrying out the intentions of Clauses 5 and 7 of this Bill but for the performance of their duty under Clause 3. We mention Clause 3 because it is that Clause which lays down the general duty of the Board. It is a very broad duty, which reads in an impressive way. They are to have a general supervision over the iron and steel industry with a view to promoting the efficient, economic and adequate supply of iron and steel products.
If that is the duty which has been imposed on the Board why are they not allowed to have information which is obviously essential to the carrying out of that duty? How can they be sure that the industry is carrying out efficiently the duty of producing iron and steel products unless they are able to look at the books of the companies, to examine the works, to make comparisons and to do all the other things which any body charged with ensuring the efficiency of an industry or group of industries must do before it can carry out its duties?
We know that the Minister has not given the Board power to impose their will on the industry; but he should give them some authority and status so that they can find out what is happening and can include in their annual reports informed comments about the state of the industry. But we are told that the information contained in the books must remain a secret and that the Board may not look at them under any circumstances except in those two which are specified in the Amendment which the Solicitor-General has moved.
If we look at another part of Clause 3 we find that it is the duty of the Board to make arrangements for the promotion of the safety, health and welfare of persons employed in the iron and steel industry. Everybody agrees that that is very desirable, but why should the Board be prohibited from going to some works where they think things are not quite satisfactory and looking for themselves at the situation? It must be remembered that it is not only the very big iron and steel producers who come under the Board. There are 2,400 firms and the Board are specifically charged with the duty of seeing that there

are adequate arrangements for the promotion of the safety, health and welfare of the employees. They cannot carry out this duty without these powers.
The Board are also given the duty of seeing that the arrangements for the promotion of research and the training and education of persons employed in the industry are satisfactory. In that case, it is very desirable that the Board should be able to go into some of these works to see if all these arrangements are adequate or whether something further is required.
The limitations imposed by the Amendment which has been moved by the Solicitor-General are wholly unnecessary. Does not the Minister trust the Board? Does he think they may misuse any information which may be given to them as a result of their inspections, or is the situation that some of the firms whose premises and books might be inspected are suspicious of the Board and think they will use the information for wrong purposes? Is this Board a really trustworthy Board which can be relied upon to act in a proper and reasonable way. and to whom all the firms concerned can confide their secrets without anything untoward happening?
The Board must have authority if they are to have any standing. If it is to consist of people who are untrustworthy, the Minister should not appoint them. I am assuming that they are a worthy and decent body, consisting of important people carrying out important duties, who can be trusted with the information disclosed to them in the way we suggest. Without these powers the Board will be nothing more than spectators—and very limited spectators. They will be collectors of limited information and much of the information which they put into the annual report to be presented to the Minister and Parliament will be useless.
If they are honest, at the end of their report they will have to say, "This is what we believe to be true as a result of information which has been supplied to us, but we have not been allowed to check any information by going to works ourselves and seeing if it is correct." It is ridiculous for Parliament to deny such a body the essential facilities for carrying out their duties.
It may be that these powers have been accidentally omitted by the Government. It is unlikely, but it is possible. In that case, we shall be delighted if they will accept our Amendment in our own words or in some other words. If they are not prepared to do that we ask them to tell us why they have withdrawn from the Board their original power to look at the books of all the companies and inspect all the works whenever they thought it necessary to do so; why there has been a change of mind; and what pressures have been brought upon them to justify that change of mind?
Unless we receive very satisfactory.answers to those questions my hon. Friends, who feel very keenly about this matter, will pursue it and probe the mind of the Government, and if we find the Government adamant we shall have to expose their true intention. This is a real exposure of the hollow sham of this Board which the Government propose to set up to control this industry, and we await with interest the Government's answer. We do not demand anything revolutionary. We demand that the Board should be given some reality, that they should be enabled to look at the job they are supposed to be carrying out, as this is obviously essential if they are to carry out their duties under the Bill.

6.0 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: >: It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I answered the right hon. Gentleman straight away. He has, indeed, broadened the debate on this Amendment. I make no complaint of that, but I should like to emphasise that our proposed Amendment is of a limited character, dealing with the enforcement of the Board's requirement and determination as to prices.
The right hon. Gentleman has sought by his Amendments to broaden the discussion to cover the entire exercise by the Board of their functions under this Bill. In the course of doing that he made some slight passing reference to the proposed new Clause—[Furnishing of information to Board and Minister]—standing in the name of my right hon. Friend, but he did not deal in any detail with what it contains or the powers it gives to the Board. It is not very easy to reply properly to the right hon. Gentleman without

making a passing reference or two to that new proposed new Clause, and I hope that I shall not exceed the bounds of order in seeking to do so.
The right hon. Gentleman said that if the Board were to have any authority at all they must have authority to know what is going on, and the requisite power to enable them to know what is going on. In our view, under the terms of the proposed new Clause that power is given to the Board. I cannot properly discuss that in any detail at present, but if the Committee look at subsection (1) of that new Clause it will be seen that the Board are given wide powers of obtaining information to enable them to discharge the general duties laid upon them. It is true that that new Clause—and I come now to the specific point made by the right hon. Gentleman—does not give power to inspect property or books; but it does give power to obtain information which the Board require for their varied purposes. Our proposed Amendment, to which the right hon. Gentleman has moved an Amendment, is concerned solely with enforcement
The right hon. Gentleman takes the view—and I think he will agree that this summarises what he said—that the Board must have general unlimited power to inspect all the books and other documents of any company at any time they wish, for the purpose of performing their functions and also the power of entering upon the property of any company whenever the Board wish to do so for the purpose of seeing what is going on. I think I am not stating the right hon. Gentleman's argument unfairly. That would mean that there might well be a substantial body of officials, authorised persons, arriving at premises with the right of admission to the premises and I can well see that it would not be very long before there was considerable criticism on the ground that these representatives of the Board were nothing more nor less than "snoopers."
That is not perhaps a very forcible argument. But I can see, too—and this is more weighty—that if the Board are given this power of enforcing the inspection of the property and any books of companies whenever they wish, it is certainly not likely to promote the relationship which should and must exist between


the Board and the members of the industry if this industry is to flourish.
The right hon. Gentleman asked why there had been this alteration in the Bill from its original form. I can answer that quite shortly. It is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take wider powers, either for themselves or for a Board of this character, than they consider to be essential. While we consider the powers of enforcing inspection to be essential where there may be a breach of the Board's requirement or determination, we do not consider that for the purpose of the other functions to be exercised by the Board it is necessary to provide a right of entry on demand to a company's property, or individual property, or a right to inspect their documents, books and other records. We do not believe that those two things are essential in any sense for the proper performance of the Board's duties.
The right hon. Gentleman also made some reference to safety, health and welfare, and argued that this power of entry should be given for that purpose. He well knows that under the Factories Acts inspectors can gain admission for that purpose.
I have dealt with the right hon. Gentleman's arguments fairly shortly, but I hope not too shortly. My answer to him is twofold. His first Amendment, which would extend our proposed Amendment to Clause 3, is quite inappropriate, because the provision of information in relation to Clause 3 is dealt with in the new Clause and not in this subsection which, I repeat, is limited to the enforcement of determinations and requirements of the Board.
With regard to the extension to property, my answer is twofold again. It is not necessary, for the purpose of enforcing the Board's requirements and determinations, to have power to inspect property. So far as the other functions of the Board are concerned, we consider that the right of inspecting property is also unnecessary. We do not want this Board to interfere—as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not want them to interfere—in the day-to-day running of the business. I do not think he goes as far as that; but he wants to have this right to demand entry and admission.
I believe that with the Bill in its present form there is great force in the view expressed on a previous occasion by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown), to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. It is the intention and desire that the members of the Board and their staff should have very friendly relationships with the members of the industry; and it is the intention that they shall from time to time pay visits to various works and premises. But their reception and treatment will be different and the effect of what they say is likely to be considerably greater if there is a friendly relationship rather than the relationship which is likely to arise as a result of someone presenting himself at the premises, authorised, it may be by the Board or it may be by the Minister, to demand entry as of right and entitled to look at every single book, document or other paper that the company has in its possession.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Looking at Clause 2, I think the Solicitor-General will agree that the main purpose of this particular Board—the foundation of its being—is that it should have powers of supervision. On that aspect of the matter, I am trying to follow his argument. How are the Board to have effective supervision if they have no power of entry or inspection? Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will develop that point.

The Solicitor-General: I think I can deal with that point very shortly. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at Clause 3 again he will see that it is the duty of the Board to exercise a general supervision over the iron and steel industry. That general supervision can, in my view, be properly exercised if the new Clause is added to the Bill, without giving the Board the right to secure entry upon the premises of any individual or company—upon the property of that company—and without giving the Board and its members the right of inspecting every document in the company's possession.
I think general supervision can be exercised without that. We have considered the matter very carefully, and the new Clause gives adequate powers, and I hope that when we do come to the near Clause the hon. and learned Gentleman


will be satisfied that the powers are adequate for the purpose of exercising general supervision.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: The difficulty I find is how the Board can have effective supervision if we leave the position optional and capricious so far as the companies are concerned, because they can in those circumstances allow or disallow, at their own whim, entry and inspection by the Board. They can do that all along the line of the Board's duties. There is no provision here at all to enforce any requirement of the Board. The supervision by the Board cannot, therefore, possibly be effective unless they can enforce that supervision.

The Solicitor-General: To enable the Board to exercise general supervision the Board must know what is going on; the Board must receive information; they must be able to obtain information. In the new Clause it is clearly provided that the Board will be able to obtain information, and if they do not get the information they require there is a criminal sanction. That is one thing. It is a quite different thing to say that the Board should have power to send people down to look at books, documents, invoices of a company whenever they wish, and for the Board to send people down to demand entry as of right at any time on the premises of a company or individual.
We do not consider that that right of entry upon property is essential. We think that, so far as we provide it in the Amendment that I moved, the right to examine documents of the character I have described for the purpose of seeing whether or not the Board's requirements and the Board's determinations have been or have not been infringed is all that is necessary in this connection.

Mr. Jack Jones: I rise to support the argument put forward by my right hon. Friend. I submit to the Committee that the Solicitor-General has really over-emphasised and distorted what our Amendment seeks to do. There is not the slightest intention on the part of anybody in the Committee—certainly not of anybody on this side—to have a board that sets out to be an "awkward squad" at any moment, with power without notice and without courteous acknowledgements to enter various works. What we have in

mind is a board able to do the job the Government say they are setting up the Board to do, that is, to supervise the industry—not to supervise it remotely through a telescope from London, but to take positive action in the industry.
6.15 p.m.
This idea that the Board would fail to make friends with various companies because there was a desire to have a look at the books seems to be all the more reason why our Amendment should be accepted. If we have to depend on the good will of the companies about to come into operation, by leaving their books unlooked at and their works unseen, that, to a very innocent sort of person, is all the more reason why should pursue our point of view.
What we have in mind is that there should be a set-up whereby from time to time the Board will receive from the companies they are supposed to be supervising—we have now got to the supposition of supervision—returns showing, for instance, what firm A, with 6,000 ton, of steel capacity per week, has accomplished. The Board think, on seeing the returns, and comparing them with those of another firm with similar capacity. that there is a great difference between the firms in production, and in price, and in quality, and so on. We want the Board to have some power to go along and say. "What has gone wrong? What is happening?" We know something about this industry, and we know that firms vary. The very fact that the Board have this right, if not the power, to have a look from time to time if they so desire at the companies' costings, their supply of raw materials and what is happening to them—the very fact that that is in the Bill—would, in our opinion, be conducive to keeping the firms concerned on their toes.
The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown) and I have already had an exchange of views about the visits of the steel men. He said there would be no let or hindrance to people coming from the Board or anywhere else to have a look round the works. Of course there would not if the visit were just a social visit—just a look round, then a meal, and a fun fair and a cigar, and what have you. But it is a completely different picture when the Board arrive with an intention of making an analysis of the


production of the place, having regard to the facts that have come into their possession; not because they have any time to waste, not because they want to snoop and to be pin-pricking and making things awkward, but because, as is suggested in the Bill itself, they have the public interest at heart.
That is what it is the Board's job to do. They would go to firm x or firm y and say, "We see from your own records that there is a difference between these two companies, and we should like to know how this has been brought about." There are many aspects in which firms differ, or by which differences may be brought about—in production, by discounts, by wastage, through the percentage of production from the raw materials supplied to the works. The hon. Member for Esher knows the tremendous difference that obtains between different works—the percentage obtained of good steel made from the raw material received.
I repeat with emphasis that long-range telescopic supervision does not appeal to us at all. Why the original intention of the Government should be superseded by this new Clause we cannot understand— unless it is because the big hand has been at work. "Why should we let our books be looked at?" they say. Why should there be any fear of the books being looked at? Why should there be? "Why should our production records be examined?" they ask. Why should there be any fear if everything is fair and square and above board? What about managerial costs? Tonnage production per managerial costs varies from firm to firm a tremendous amount.
There may be a firm having in its employ very qualified steelmakers, more than they need to have. There may be a firm in need of a good, qualified man. Why should not the Board make the suggestion that the firm with more steelmakers than it requires should allow one or some to be transferred to the firm in need of that assistance, in the interests of efficient production? The idea of the Board being kept in London, and their representatives making an occasional social visit to firms, does not appeal to us at all, and makes us all the more desirous to press our Amendments. We

want to be assured that what the Government say they intend to do, they really mean to do.
The public read these debates and they think that here is a Board being set up with no powers or right of entry. We are not saying that there should be admission on short notice—of rushing into the works and putting someone on the carpet. That would be sheer nonsense. But we do say that if the Board are not satisfied, and have reason to believe that things are not as they should be in the public interest, they should have the right to go along and make the necessary suggestions in a proper way to ensure that the things which they believe to be wrong are put right. We ask the Government to accept our request in this matter.

Mr. Robson Brown: I accept the attitude of the Solicitor-General on the right of entry into works. We do not think that the Bill should have a Clause of such an arbitrary character in it. I ask the Solicitor-General to confirm that, in his opinion, as in the opinion of any reasonable Member of the Committee, it would be a very unusual company which refused to allow a visit at the proper request of the Board of any member or representatives of the Board in relation to any matter on which there was doubt. I think that, in practice, such an attitude would raise such grave suspicions that it would be perfectly justifiable for the Board, in considering price-fixing for that particular section of the industry, to say, "We are sorry, but we cannot approve the price-fixing in the way you do it, for the reasons we give." The power which could be exercised in that direction would be tremendous.
As the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) knows, there is not a single manufacturer in the steel industry whom one could imagine would ever, under any circumstances, refuse a reasonable request by the Board to allow their representatives to visit the works for the inspection of plant or equipment, or in connection with any other powers given to the Board under any section of the Bill.
There is one other point which I should like to mention. There are proper and adequate provisions in the


Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act, 1948, covering and giving additional powers in this matter. The question of the examination of books is a narrow point related specifically to certain sections of the industry, apart from steel operating and other capacity I do not think that it is the purpose or duty of the Board to concern themselves with operations outside the iron and steel industry. I am quite satisfied, and I am sure that the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) and his colleagues are satisfied, that any books or figures required could be obtained willingly and freely, and if they cannot be, there are sufficient provisions in the Bill to see that they are obtained.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman realises that there are 2,400 firms concerned and that many have expressed the greatest indignation against coming under the supervision of a Board of any sort. They consider that anti-social and undesirable. Does he not appreciate that it may well be that one or more of these firms, when the Board request permission to examine their works, will say, "No." I would like to ask him, in particular, why he supported the Bill when it was first published and had this power in it—no one objected to it—and whether he can tell us whether he is one of those who brought pressure on the Government to modify the Bill as it was originally drafted?

Mr. Jack Jones: I should like to put to the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown), who is one of the practical men on this Committee and whose opinion we value, this point. Here we have a Board which have to make determinations in regard to expansion or extension or in respect of completely new plant. Assuming that we have six plans put forward to the Board for expansion from six of the well-known companies, and the Board have to make a determination that expansion shall be only granted to one or two, they will want, in the public interest, to be in possession of information to enable them to grant the applications for expansion to firms where steel can be most economically produced at the lowest possible price and in the highest quality and quantity. How can the Board determine which of these six companies shall have permission for ex-

tension or expansion unless they have access to the records, books, costings, and so on?

Mr. Robson Brown: I will answer that point. My attention has been drawn to the new Clause 5, relating to the furnishing of information to the Minister and the Board. I think that that covers that point very completely. Obviously, the Board must have the right to make these inspections and arrive at their decision in the light of the judgment they derive from the facts available at the works.
What we are really debating is not the broad points between the hon. Member for Rotherham and myself in relation to the steel industry as such, precisely as we understand it, but the foundry industry and that part of the Bill. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is burning to get on his feet to speak on that matter and, therefore, I will leave it to him.

Mr. Wilfred Fienburgh: It is almost an anti-climax to break up the friendly atmosphere that exists between my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) and the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown). Both are practical steel men whose knowledge, I am sure, is of great value, particularly that of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham.
Both the hon. Member for Esher and the Solicitor-General have attempted, in resisting these Amendments, to evade the issue by drawing attention to the new Clause and to the provision contained therein that the Board shall have power to call for information. I want to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that not very long ago there was an attempt by an external authority to control a steel industry upon the basis of information supplied without adequate physical supervision, and that was the attempt of tripartite control over the German iron and steel industry at the time of the Ruhr Authority.
There was then all the power in the world to demand information, and information was supplied in duplicate and in triplicate with Teutonic thoroughness, but there was not adequate physical investigation and supervision. What happened? Whereas that industry was supposed to be working at a maximum production of 11¼ million tons per annum,


it was found that it was producing at the rate of 14 million tons per annum. Yet the information had been provided and all the forms filled in.
I remember under this form of supervision going round some German steel works with Mr. Harry Douglas, the Assistant General Secretary of the Iron and Steel Federation, when he discussed with great expertness the plants and facilities available in some of those works, and where he was told glibly by some of the production managers that particular furnaces or battery of furnaces had only a production of x thousand tons. I do not remember the figures, and I have not had time to look them up because the point only occurred to me while I was listening to the debate.
As a steel man of some long experience, he took leave to doubt and challenge these figures and to investigate them. As the result of the on-the-spot investigation, he was able to get a confession from the German steel managers that, in fact, their production was some 25 per cent. per annum more than that which they had filled in on their returns and sent in on the basis of the information requested. It simply does not work.
6.30 p.m.
We are not suggesting that the Board should have the degree of restrictive control over the British iron and steel industry that the tripartite control attempted to have over the German iron and steel industry, but the illustration which I have given makes the point that behind the doors and gates of a steel works a great deal can go on which can only be disclosed as a result of on-the-spot investigation. I am prepared to accept, as I am sure the Committee is prepared to accept, all the assurances given by the hon. Member for Esher that doors will be thrown wide open and people will be taken round when they so request.
However, the hon. Member for Esher, who speaks with all the authority that he has upon aspects of the steel industry, does not speak for the steel industry. He does not speak for the recalcitrant section of the steel industry. He speaks, perhaps, for an enlightened section of the industry, and that fact makes his contributions so much more welcome in the Committee but not all steel people see precisely eye

to eye with him and he is not empowered to commit them. Therefore, we feel that, despite his offers, we really must ask for firmer statutory provision.
As a result of our debates, the Board is an anatomical monstrosity. The Government professed to give it muscle and then cut the tendons so that it cannot move its arms or legs. The Government professed to give it sensibility, but they neglected to provide a nervous system. The Opposition have made attempts to give it teeth, but hon. Gentlemen opposite are content that it shall remain toothless. One thing at least which the Government did in the original draft of the Bill was to provide the wretched animal with eyes, but in their second thoughts they have carefully gouged out the eyes of the Board to blind it completely so that it is now not only immobile and without sensibility but even without eyes to see what is happening.

Mr. Raymond Gower: I find my view to be somewhere between that of my hon. and learned Friend and that of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I do not agree that the form of the Amendments would fulfil the object of the Bill in so far as the Board is envisaged to be a supervisory body, and, as was made plain when other Amendments were rejected, not a controlling body. On the other hand, it might be open to argument whether there should be some final sanction, for that appears to be somewhat lacking.
To cite an instance, there was the example of the weakness in the Board's supervisory power over the arrangements for safety and welfare. It was said that these requirements could be fulfilled under the Factory Acts and the Clause would be superfluous because it would be unnecessary to state that this was one of the functions of the Board. It seems to me that between now and the Report stage an attempt might be made to find a form of wording which would give some sanction to the Board beyond the mere inspection of documents. I do not think the Government could properly accept the Amendments tabled by the Opposition because they would tend not merely to give the Board greater powers but to give controlling powers. Nevertheless, there should be some improvement upon the powers now provided by the present drafting.

Mr. Frederick Lee: The Solicitor-General has spoken on two occasions, counting an intervention that he made, and he speaks with the authority of his legal knowledge and we know that his hearing is pretty good. Why is it that he has constantly evaded the question put to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss): What happened to the original Clause 13?

Mr. Nabarro: Sunk without trace.

Mr. Lee: That is what we are worried about. Why does not the hon. and learned Gentleman come to the Box and answer that simple question? I will gladly give way to him if he will tell us the answer.

The Solicitor-General: I answered it in my speech dealing with the Amendment.

Mr. Lee: No.

The Solicitor-General: Indeed, I did. I said that we have come to the conclusion that the powers taken in the Clause were more extensive than necessary.

Mr. Lee: Now we have the answer. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is accusing his hon. and learned Friend of being a Socialist.

Mr. Nabarro: My intervention was intended to convey that the powers inherent in the original Clause 13 represented the quintessence of Socialist regimentation.

Mr. Lee: That reinforces what I said. In other words, the hon. Gentleman is accusing his hon. and learned Friend of being a Socialist of a particularly high order. However, that does not happen to be quite so. The opinion expressed on Second Reading by the Opposition that the Board to be set up under the Bill were nothing but a sham and a fraud is now proved to be correct by the Solicitor-General himself. He told us in his intervention that the original intention was to give the Board some degree of supervision but that in the meantime a voice has breathed o'er—not Eden but another member of the same Government.
In Clause 3 there are one or two provisions of extreme importance to the workers in the industry. As my right

hon. Friend pointed out, the Clause provides certain powers for educational purposes, and subsection (1, f) provides arrangements for joint consultation between the steel producers and their employees. If the members of the Board are not to be permitted to examine what arrangements which are being made or are not being made within the ambit of Clause 3, I suggest that the workers are not being allowed the facilities which they are apparently given in the Clause. The whole idea appears to be a kind of supervision by helicopter. If the Minister of Supply had to supervise the Ministry of Supply without being allowed to enter it, how could he possibly be answerable to the House for what occurred?

Mr. Peter Roberts: Surely the hon. Member has read the Clause we are discussing. It gives adequate powers for the Board to enter.

Mr. Lee: It is just because I have read the Clause that I am worried about it.

Mr. Roberts: >: It gives adequate powers.

Mr. Lee: No, it does not. It has been pointed out that our Amendment is being refused because the Government did not consider that the members of the Board should be permitted to enter premises when they wished to do so, and that reinforces the opinion we held on Second Reading that the Board are a sham and a farce and have no powers whatsoever to supervise the industry. When we moved an Amendment some time ago to introduce the word "control," no wonder the hon. Member for Kidderminster almost fainted at the thought and was quick to ask his right hon. Friend under no conditions to agree to its insertion.
The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown) told us that we could always rely upon it that those who owned the steel industry would be very happy to meet these people on a friendly basis. How does the hon. Member know who will be owning the steel industry after the sale of the assets? I have already suggested that those who previously owned the steel industry will not be the future owners. I do not believe that many former owners will want to buy back their shareholdings. It will be the speculators who will be willing to take a gamble on getting a decent price before


a Labour Government returns to power and re-nationalises the industry.
The hon. Member for Esher is not in a position to say that the steel industry will always be willing to welcome the members of the Board to inspect their premises. The Government are now confronted with a straight issue. They should say why they have withdrawn Clause 13 or they should admit that they do not intend to give the Board the slightest power whatever, and that this is simply a confidence trick which they have perpetrated against the people of this country.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: This is a matter which I am sure the hon. and learned Solicitor-General will look at in a friendly and sensible way. I have considered this question most carefully and I intervene only because I am profoundly disturbed by the point in issue. I submit that as the matter stands it makes completely nonsensical legislation. Clause 3 very properly sets out the various functions of supervision—I stress the word supervision —which are conferred upon the Board. The Board are given very important duties in connection with productive capacity; arrangements for procuring and distributing raw materials; prices; arrangements for the promotion of research; the promotion of the safety, health and welfare of the different people involved; and joint consultation.
Either those are real functions and the intention is that they are to be carried out by the Board, or the provision is just a farce. It is certainly rendered a farce by what the Government are now seeking to do, I ask the Solicitor-General to consider this Clause and the Amendment and their effect. Is not it a fact that the Board would have to go to the court before they were entitled to enforce any or all of the supervisory duties purported to be conferred on them? If the Board wanted to see the books of any company or firm in question and there was a refusal, they could not see them. They would have to go to the court first. The same applies to every other duty vested in the Board by Clause 3.
This means that the Board are to be dragged through the court before they can exercise any of their fundamental functions. There is no power of enforcement inscribed in this Bill except through

the jurisdiction and the order of the court. These duties are certainly conferred upon the Board but, at the same time, it is equally true that the Board cannot exercise any of them without going to court first, so that to perform their fundamental duties they have to be dragged through the courts. That is reducing legislation to a state which is absolutely ludicrous and intolerable. I do not think that any of these animadversions on either the Clause or the Government Amendment can be denied. If they cannot be denied, something ought to be done quickly and effectively to put the matter right.

6.45 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: I am sure that the Solicitor-General will have appreciated from the speeches which have been made the strength of feeling which actuates my hon. Friends. The Board should be provided with adequate powers to discharge their responsibilities. When this Bill first saw the light of day such adequate powers were contained in Clause 13. Those powers included the right to go on to premises and to inspect property. That right has now been taken away from the Board.
The Solicitor-General says that we should look at the new Clause where we will find that the Board are given what they need. The new Clause does not give the Board that power. The Board are not given that power in any other part of the Bill although they had it. The Solicitor-General, in those well modulated tones in which we so much delight, says that this proposal by my right hon. Friend savours of snooping. He holds up his hand as if there was something indecent about it. He made a most appealing case to that effect.
But if this is indecent now why was not it indecent on 5th November, 1952, when this Bill was presented? Why was not it indecent during the many months of cogitation on the part of the Government which ultimately produced the Bill? Many of us thought that the Government had given it up as a bad job. Apparently they had not, and ultimately the Bill came to life with Clause 13 in it. If ever there was a case of Philip sober condemning Philip drunk, this is that case. We are all delighted to recognise a commanding intellect in the Solicitor-General, but had


his intellect ceased to command on 5th November, 1952? Had it ceased to command right through November, through December and through part of January until at long last an Amendment was put down cutting out Clause 13?
The Solicitor-General has been asked by one after another of my hon. Friends what have been the comings and goings which have led to the truncation of the Board's necessary powers. He has not told us. What he has said is that he thinks that the powers are unnecessary. If he thinks them unnecessary now, why did not he think them unnecessary before; or is this a case of dormitat Homerus and through all these long months was the Solicitor-General slumbering in blissful ignorance on this matter? I cannot believe that that is the case. We feel that there is something indecent and suspicious about this. [Laughter]. Hon. Members opposite laugh but what is the state of affairs?
This Bill received the fullest consideration. I have not the least doubt about that. Ultimately, after being forged and fashioned in the minds of the Government for months and months it came to life, and the Board were constituted by it. They were charged with most important functions. There was Clause 13. It saw the light of day for some weeks, and nothing was done by the Government; but, suddenly. the Clause was taken out.
We find it extremely difficult to account for such a sudden change of heart on the part of the Government. Why is it? What initiated it? Why is what was right and proper before suddenly so wrong and improper now that the Solicitor-General thinks that it is quite indecent and snooping? This is extremely serious. Unless they can go on to premises and inspect property, it will be impossible for the Board to discharge the functions vested in them in Clause 3, as well as in Clauses 5 and 7.
We were most disappointed by the answer given by the Solicitor-General. We feel extremely puzzled as to what moved him to initiate this change. We feel still more puzzled as to the almost complete bankruptcy of the argument which he advanced to support it. That argument was simply that he did not like it. He has not given any reason why he does not like it, and why he liked it

before. I hope that my hon. Friends will take this matter to the Division Lobby to express their disapproval at this change of heart and lack of courage on the part of the Government when somebody got at them and said that this Clause ought to go.

The Solicitor-General: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has done his utmost to convince me of the strength of feeling on his side of the Committee with regard to this Amendment. I do not question it. The issue between us lies in determining what are adequate powers for the Board in the discharge of their duties. The right hon. and learned Gentleman sought to castigate me because the Bill, in its present form, differs from the Bill as originally introduced, but I have never heard it advanced as criticism against a Government that they tried to amend or alter and improve a Bill. Listening to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, one would think it a criminal offence to try to improve or make an alteration to a Bill after it has been introduced—unless the alteration were made by the Opposition. That is a most untenable proposition.
I have said, and I repeat, that when a Bill has been introduced or re-introduced we can consider it and seek to improve it, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree, right up to a very late stage. I have seen it happen time and time again. This Bill has been considerably improved since its original introduction.
Let me come to the arguments which have been advanced and deal with them as shortly as I can. I do not believe that there is anything unpleasant or suspicious behind me [Laughter].—looking round the Committee I see no ground for suspicion—or behind this alteration. There is no force in that argument. Where we differ is in considering what are adequate powers for the Board. We consider that the powers which we propose in the Amendment I have moved to be necessary for securing enforcement under Clauses 5 and 7. The right hon. and learned Gentleman—and I make no complaint about it—seeks to extend our Amendment to cover Clause 3 and the rest of the functions of the Board.
The hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) asked me a question, which, of course, I must


try to answer. He suggested that we could never get information as to what was happening and that the Board would never be able to obtain it from a reluctant company without dragging the company through the courts. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at Clause 27 again he will see that recourse to the courts relates only to breach of a requirement under Clause 5 or as to determination of price under Clause 7. There is no power for injunction proceedings to be brought in connection with Clause 3.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: The functions contained in Clause 3 could not be enforced, even if there were a direction from the Minister, unless the Board had recourse to the court and in that way obtained an order.

The Solicitor-General: I differ from the hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not think there would be any power to go to the court to get an order. The Amendment I moved relates solely to Clauses 5 and 7. The proposed new Clause deals with the Board's powers in relation to Clause 3 and other Clauses. I do not want to say anything to minimise the importance we attach to Clause 3, but we feel that the powers we have given to the Board in relation to Clause 3, and which are contained in the proposed new Clause, and in relation to other matters, are adequate to enable the Board to exercise general supervision. I dare say that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not agree with that, and there may be others who do not, but that is our view.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Putting aside a mandatory injunction, which, of course, is a civil proceeding, and means going to the court in any case, would not the Solicitor-General agree that even as regards Clauses 5 and 7 none of the functions could be enforced without going to court, either by way of injunction or by way of order under summary jurisdiction?

The Solicitor-General: I do not know what the hon. and learned Gentleman means by "enforced" in that connection. The Amendment deals with the enforcement of the Board's requirements. The proceedings taken under Clause 27, if the Amendment is accepted, will enable the Board and the Minister to secure that the

requirement and the determination are complied with.
I come back to the Amendment. Hard words have been used by the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) and there was some reference to confidence tricks which was completely inappropriate. The proposed new Clause gives sufficient power. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) asked my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown) what would happen when five companies made an application and the Board wanted further information. I cannot imagine for one moment that a company applying for a determination in its favour in relation to its functions would be reluctant to supply the Board with the necessary information that the Board required in support of that application.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: That is begging the whole question.

The Solicitor-General: I do not think it is begging the question in the least. I do not think that the power of entering into property as of right, or the power of compelling inspection of books, would be in the least necessary in relation to an application made by a company for liberty to expand. The question of the hon. Gentleman almost answers itself. There was great force in what my hon. Friend the Member for Esher said when he suggested that it would be a very unusual company which resisted any suggestion made by the Board which was likely to promote efficiency, good conditions, or anything of that sort.
The sole issue is whether the Board should have the right to demand entry for any authorised person at any time to inspect any document of a company or any premises belonging to a company. We say that the right to inspect documents is necessary in relation to enforcement under Clauses 5 and 7, but we do not believe that the right to demand entry as of right is essential or necessary for the Board's other powers.
It is putting it quite inaccurately to say that the Board has no powers. The Board have powers and it is putting it inaccurately to suggest that the Board will never be permitted to visit premises unless they have a statutory right to demand entry. We have considered this matter very carefully and we have come to the conclusion that if the Committee accept the Amendment it will give the


teeth required to this Part of the Bill while the proposed new Clause will give the teeth that are required in other Parts of the Bill.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: The Solicitor-General has tried to get away with it by saying, "After all, anybody can change their mind; any Government can move Amendments to their own Bill and there is nothing wrong in that." As a broad statement of principle one would agree with that, but in this case we are entitled to know what it was that moved the Government to change their minds.
We must bear in mind what happened. This Bill was produced, and the moment we saw it, we said that the Government were trying to set up a Board which were a sham in order to pretend that there was to be public supervision over the industry. On the other hand, people in the industry and many Conservative supporters said, "My word, it is possible that this Board may be a reality. They might interfere with us. We know we shall be all right under a Conservative Government. Of course they would not dare to do anything. But there is a danger that there may be a Labour Government one of these days and they would seek to use the powers of the Board, to interfere with us, to examine our efficiency and to stir things up. We do not want that to happen."
At that stage there was a tremendous volume of criticism and of opposition, in particular from the foundries, who wrote to every Conservative and Labour Member of Parliament saying, "We must stop this Board, which will interfere with us, look at our works and even at our prices, and do all sorts of things." All sorts of negotiations took place behind the scenes between the Minister, who must have been worried by the opposition coming from his own side, and his own industrial supporters. It is clear that somebody said, "What we want above everything else is that this Board should not be allowed to look at our works to see what we are doing because, when there is a Labour Government, they might see all sorts of things and want us to do things that we do not want to do."
Therefore, we ask again, was it Steel House which was frightened that a serious Board might do something, was it the industry as a whole, was it the

foundries, was it the 1922 Committee? Who was it that came along and made the Government run away from their previous decision? Remember that that decision was arrived at not after some months of consideration; more than a year elapsed between the time that this Bill was announced and its publication. So great consideration must have been given to it. We have not been told and we shall not be told what made the Government change their minds on this point, whether it was Steel House or the Conservative Party here.
We say again that it is making the thing a farce to say that a body which is supposed to exercise public supervision is not allowed to look at any works under any circumstances, whatever inefficient practices the Board may consider there are in those works. A short time ago the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers), who speaks to some extent for the steel industry, said that he conceived of the Board as a kind of policeman to look after the public interest. That is a simile we are prepared to accept, and it is accepted by the Government that there must be a body to look after the public interest. But that body will do this job without any serious power. [An HON. MEMBER: "And blindfolded."] And blindfolded, as my hon. Friend says.
We say it is a ridiculous situation, and when the public realise how restricted the Board will be in that they are forbidden to look at books except for limited purposes, and are forbidden under all circumstances to visit one of the works over which they are supposed to have authority, the public will realise what nonsense this Bill is. In order to save time we shall go through the Division Lobby only once, but we do so with a greater conviction than on any previous occasion that our Amendment is justified, and a greater conviction than on any previous occasion that the Government have made fools of themselves in resisting our Amendment.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: The Solicitor-General said that the only thing between us was the question of the powers of the Board. That is not true and he knows perfectly well, having listened to this debate. For some time we have been trying to convince him that there was something else, and all he has done has


been to say, "We have changed our minds," and has refused to answer our question as to what made the Government change their minds. That may be excellent practice in a preparatory school debating society but it is not good enough for the House of Commons.
The hon. and learned Gentleman said that there was nothing sinister behind him. We think there is something sinister behind him in this matter. We have seen the Government refusing to accept Amendments designed to bring into the light of day the transactions in regard to the disposal of assets. We have seen the Government refusing to accept Amendments designed to bring into the light of day the influence of Steel House. They have refused all these things, and we know that the Government's own political party refuses to disclose its own political funds and the sources from which it gets them.
All these things we have seen, so of course we think there is something sinister in what is going on in the minds of the Government. We think there is a close association between the Government and Steel House, which is perhaps the most sinister political conspiracy at the present time. It is just a ramp, as was another silly control on a previous occasion—"a damned ramp with big cigars and nothing to do," if I may nearly quote the words of a noble Lord in

another place. That is what it will be again—it will have nothing to do because the Government will not allow the Board to do things effectively.

Now I want to leave the Solicitor-General and come to the right hon. Gentleman sitting next to him. Does the Minister really think that it is a courtesy to this Committee to sit there mum and not even answer the questions which have been put to him again and again from this side of the Committee? Are we not entitled to know what were the reasons for having put in the Bill originally the power to inspect property and then subsequently taking away that power? There must have been some reason. There has obviously been a change of mind. It is not enough to say that there has been a change of mind, because we know that. Are we not entitled to common courtesy and to have the reasons given to us?

If the right hon. Gentleman will not accept our Amendment, I appeal to him at least to get up now and give us a short explanation of the reasons beyond saying, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, that the Government have changed their minds. Surely at this last minute he can treat us with courtesy?

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 236; Noes, 254.

Division No. 108.]
AYES
[7.9 p.m.


Adams, Richard
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)


Albu, A. H.
Champion, A. J
Fernyhough, E.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Chapman, W. D.
Fienburgh, W.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Chetwynd, G. R.
Finch, H. J


Anderson, Frank (Whilehaven)
Clunie, J.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Collick, P. H.
Follick, M.


Awbery, S. S.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Cove, W. G.
Freeman, John (Watford)


Balfour, A.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Freeman, Peter (Newport)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Crosland, C. A. R.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N


Bartley, P.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Gibson, C. W.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Glanville, James


Bence, C. R.
Daines, P.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.


Benson, G.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Griffiths David (Rother Vakkey)


Beswick, F.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Blackburn, F.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)


Blenkinsop, A.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hamilton, W. W.


Blyton, W. R.
Deer, G.
Hannan, W.


Boardman, H.
Delargy, H. J.
Hardy, E. A.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Dodds, N. N.
Hargreaves, A.


Bowden, H. W.
Donnelly, D. L.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Hastings, S.


Brockway, A. F.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hayman, F. H.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Edelman, M.
Healy, Cahir (Fermanagh)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Hobson, C. R.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Holman, P.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Houghton, Douglas


Callaghan, L. J.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)




Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Mort, D. L.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R R.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Moyle, A.
Strachey, Rt. Hon J


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Murray, J. D.
Strauss, Rt. Hon George (Vauxhall)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Nally, W.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Swingler, S. T


Janner, B.
Oldfield, W. H
Sylvester, G. O


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Oliver, G. H.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Orbach, M.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Oswald, T.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Padley, W. E.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Paget, R. T.
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Pannell, Charles
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Jones, [...]ack (Rotherham)
Pargiter, G. A.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Jones, T. W (Merioneth)
Paton, J.
Thornton, E.


Keenan, W
Pearson, A.
Timmons, J


Kenyon, C.
Pearl, T. F.
Tomney, F.


Key, Rt. Hon C. W.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Turner-Samuels, M.


King, Dr H. M
Popplewell, E.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Kinley, J.
Porter, G.
Viant, S. P.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Watkins, T. E.


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Proctor, W. T.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Pryde, D. J.
Weitzman, D.


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Lewis, Arthur
Rankin, John
Wells, William (Walsall)


Lindgren, G S.
Reeves, J.
West, D. G


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Wheeldon, W. E.


MacColl, J. E.
Reid, William (Camlachie)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


McGhee, H. G.
Rhodes, H.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


McGovern, J
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Wigg, George


McInnes, J.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C A B


McLeavy, F.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Panoras, N.)
Wilkins, W. A.


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Willey, F. T.


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Ross, William
Williams, David (Nealh)


Mainwaring, W. H.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertllery)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Short, E. W.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Manuel, A. C.
Shurmer, P. L. E
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Mayhew, C. P
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Mellish, R. J
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


Messer, F.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Wyatt, W. L.


Mikardo, lan
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Yates, V. F.


Mitchison, G. R.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Younger, Rt. Hon K.


Monslow, W.
Snow, J. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Moody, A. S
Sorensen, R. W.
Mr. Wallace and Mr. J. Johnson.


Morley, R.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank



Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Steele, T.





NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Doughty, C. J. A.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm


Alport, C. J. M
Brooman-White, R. C.
Dragoon, G. B. 


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Browne, Jack (Govan)
Drewe, C.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Bullard, D. G.
Duthie, W. S.


Arbuthnot, John
Bullock, Capt. M.
Elliot, Rt. Hon W. E


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E
Erroll, F. J


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Burden, F. F. A.
Fell, A.


Astor, Hon. J. J
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Finlay, Graeme


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Fisher, Nigel


Baldwin, A. E
Campbell, Sir David
Fort, R.


Banks, Col, C.
Carr, Robert
Foster, John


Barber, Anthony
Channon, H.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell


Barlow, Sir John
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Poll[...]k)


Baxter, A. B.
Cole, Norman
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Colegate, W. A.
Glyn, Sir Ralph


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Godber, J. B.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Gomme-Duncan, Col A


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Cough, C. F. H.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Cranborne, Viscount
Gower, H. R.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Graham, Sir Fergus


Bevins, J. R. (T[...]xteth)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Gridley, Sir Arnold


Birch, Nigel
Crouch, R. F
Grimond, J.


Bishop, F. P.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Black, C. W.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Bossom, A. C.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Harden, J. R. E.


Bowen, E. R.
Deedes, W. F.
Hare, Hon. J. H.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Digby, S. Wingfield
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Braine, B. R.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Harrison, Col J. H. (Eye)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Donner, P. W.





Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Russell, R. S.


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Maciay, Rt. Hon. John
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Maclean, Fitzroy
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Hay, John
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Heald, Sir Lionel
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Heath, Edward
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Scott, R. Donald


Henderson, John (Cathoart)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R


Higgs, J. M C.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Shepherd, William


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Markham, Major S. F.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Marples A. E.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Maude, Angus
Soames, Capt C.


Holt, A. F.
Maudling, R.
Spearman, A. C. M


Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Speir, R. M.


Hornsby Smith, Miss M. P.
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Horobin, I. M.
Mellor, Sir John
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Horshrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Molson, A. H. E.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Stevens, G. P.


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Nicholls, Harmar
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Storey, S.


Hurd, A. R.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Oakshott, H. D.
Teeling, W.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Odey, G. W.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Jennings, R.
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Kaberry, D.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Tilney, John


Kerr, H. W.
Osborne, C.
Turner, H. F. L.


Lambert, Hon. G.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Turton, R. H.


Lambton, Viscount
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Vosper, D. F.


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Wade, D. W.


Leather, E. H. C.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Pitman, I. J.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Powell, J. Enoch
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Linstead, H. N.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Llewellyn, D. T.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Profumo, J. D.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Raikes, Sir Victor
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Longden, Gilbert
Rayner, Brig. R.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Low, A R W.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Williams, H. Dudley (Exeter)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Renton, D. L. M.
Wills, G.


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Robertson, Sir David
Wood, Hon. R.


McAdden, S. J.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
York, C.


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Robson-Brown, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Mr. Studholme and Mr. Redmay[...]e.


McKibbin, A. J.
Roper, Sir Harold



Question put, and agreed to.

Sir F. Soskice: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 17, to leave out from "to," to the end of line 20, and to add:
imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to both such imprisonment and such fine and, if the default in respect of which he is convicted is continued after the conviction, he shall be guilty of a further offence punishable as aforesaid, except that the fine to which he may be sentenced shall be a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or five pounds for each day on which the default is so continued, whichever is the greater.
The object of this Amendment must be perfectly apparent. It is to restore the penalty which was originally provided in the late lamented Clause 13 which has now gone out of the Bill. We feel puzzled about the change that has been made with regard to penalties. The powers now vested in the Board by the Government's

proposed Amendment are far less drastic than the powers that were originally vested in the Board under Clause 13. They are, therefore, much more easy to comply with on the part of the company and there is therefore very much less excuse for non-compliance.
That being so, one might have thought that the penalties for non-compliance would have been greater, or at least would have been as great as they were before in Clause 13. But, contrary to that, which would seem the common sense approach, for some reason which we cannot divine, the penalties have been considerably lightened, and the purpose of our Amendment is to restore the old penalties.
I know it is not much good asking the Solicitor-General why the change has been made, because I can easily divine his


answer, which will be: because he has changed his mind. I know it will not be much good asking him why he has changed his mind because the answer to that will be: because he has changed his mind. I hope that there will be some sign of repentance on his part.
Although we have discussed in principle the general changes that we want to make in the Government's Amendment, I am moving this last Amendment to the Government's Amendment in the hope that the Solicitor-General, although he may have changed his mind, will once again change it back and realise that, in fact, it is illogical to create by the Government change an offence for which there is much less excuse and to provide lesser penalties for the commission of that offence. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will see the force of our suggestion, which is that in the case of this offence, for which there can be very little excuse, he should restore the penalties which the Government themselves put in their own previous Clause.
In that case, the penalties were far from drastic. When he has taken spiritual sustenance from the Box, I commend to the Solicitor-General his own Clause 28 where, for offences which do not seem to be any more serious, a far more serious penalty is provided—namely, a penalty of imprisonment for a considerable time. I hope he will agree that in this Amendment, at least, we are right. I hope he will say not simply that he has changed his mind but that he proposes to accept our Amendment.

The Solicitor-General: I should like to make it clear at the beginning of my remarks that I see nothing of which to repent and that I do not intend to repent of anything which I have said. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made a great many comments upon the sinister significance of making any alteration in the Bill, but we are always seeking to improve it where we can and I shall not be deterred from seeking to make an improvement in the Bill by his observations in the course of our recent discussions.
It is quite right that the original Bill contained a penalty of imprisonment. On reflection, we think that, for refusal to allow an inspection of documents which is necessary to secure enforcement under Clause 5 or Clause 7, it would be right to provide for a possible penalty of im-

prisonment. There is nothing between us on that point. I think I am right in saying that our Amendment is now modelled, in the penalties involved, on the Statistics of Trade Act, where the circumstances are somewhat comparable.
I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw the Amendment for this reason. We should like to give further consideration to the amount of the financial penalty. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will see that in his Amendment the maximum fine for the first offence is a fine not exceeding £100. and there is the same maximum for a second offence and the same maximum term of imprisonment. Under our Amendment, on Clause 27, he will see that the maximum fine for the second offence is a fine not exceeding £200. We should like to give further consideration to what is the right maximum penalty both of imprisonment and of fine. I think a little further consideration is also required of the drafting in relation to the default clause. It is not easy to see how a default clause can operate de die in diem in relation to price determination.
I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will withdraw the Amendment. We will seek to table an Amendment to provide for these matters, I hope to his satisfaction, before the Report stage.

Mr. Robson Brown: I was very pleased to hear the Solicitor-General's observations on this Amendment, with which I am very much in general agreement.

Sir F. Soskice: I should like to thank the Solicitor-General for his speech, which was extremely helpful. In order to see what the Government put on the Order Paper, I will withdraw the Amendment. I am obliged to the Solicitor-General. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, ' That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. J. E. S. Simon: This Clause lays down a novel procedure for dealing with breaches of regulations made by the Board under


their powers of control over development and price fixing. The procedure in connection with development is adequate. It seems to me that where development is undertaken in contravention of a mandate of the Board, then the penalty of an injunction restraining it is likely to be a very heavy one. In fact, it is almost inconceivable that any major project— and this applies only to major projects should be undertaken when it is known that an injunction will be obtained ordering that project to cease, and, if necessary, ordering any work which has been done to be undone.
The remedy in the case of price fixing is perhaps not altogether adequate. My hon. and learned Friend argued quite persuasively against the imposition of criminal sanctions in connection with a breach of the price-fixing arrangement, and I must say I thought that argument appealed to all of us on this side of the Committee, who are opposed to the multiplication of economic crimes. Nevertheless, it would be distasteful if a wrongdoer in this respect—a person who charges prices in excess of those permitted by the Board and thereby reaps a profit—should be allowed to retain that profit. Is it not possible, without invoking the criminal law, to use the civil law to obtain the recoupment of the unjustified profits?
I do not know whether it would be possible for the court having the power to order an injunction to order, at the same time, the repayment to the Treasury of such a sum as represents the profit which the producer has made by charging prices in excess of those permitted.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Bowles): The hon. and learned Gentleman is not discussing the Clause as amended; he is proposing, as an alteration, that there should be not a penal punishment but a purely civil remedy. That is not in order on the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Simon: With great respect, Mr. Bowles, my remarks are directed to the part of the Clause which gives a power of injunction. I am suggesting that any Chancery court which has a power to order an injunction might, at the same time, as part of the Clause, have power

to order repayment to the Treasury of the sum involved.

The Temporary Chairman: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman can advise me. The fact that a Clause gives a court power to grant an injunction does not necessarily give the court power to order damages as well or recovery of certain money. Is not that the case? If I am right, the hon. and learned Gentleman is going outside the Question.

Mr. Simon: I would certainly not presume to advise you on such a matter, Mr. Bowles. I am saying that the Chancery court, in ordering an injunction, normally have powers, as part of their normal civil functions, to order damages. The remedy I suggest is a remedy in the nature of damages.

The Temporary Chairman: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for that legal advice, which I have no doubt is perfectly right. But if the court already have the power where it has the right to grant an injunction, then there is no need to do more, if it is implicit in the Clause as it stands.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Simon: I would not be absolutely certain that it is implicit in the Clause as it stands.

The Temporary Chairman: Then, clearly, the hon. and learned Gentleman is out of order if it is not in the Clause as it stands.

Mr. Simon: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Bowles, without any question, but having said what I said, even though it is out of order, I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will think it proper to consider that point and see if something can be done along those lines.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: The hon. and learned Gentleman has indicated that it might be in order because it is inherent in this Clause that the Chancery court or any other court in granting an injunction could, at the same time, order that the excess profits should be paid back. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman really mean that, or is he merely hazarding a guess?

The Temporary Chairman: I think that that is quite enough on the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Sir F. Soskice: I may not he strictly in order in following a little way along the path trodden by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon), but I must confess that I should like to support what he said. If I cannot do that within the rules of order, perhaps I might achieve a similar object by asking the Solicitor-General whether the effect of this Clause as it stands now is that a person who did overcharge or may have been overcharging for some considerable time would remain in possession of his ill-gotten gains, and whether, under the Clause, there would be any method of forcing him to disgorge them. If the Solicitor-General agrees that that is a true construction of the Clause, would he not also agree that that is an undesirable state of affairs? If he agrees with that, perhaps at a later stage he may give further heed to what was suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, West.

The Solicitor-General: The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) has echoed the sentiments expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon), but has managed to phrase them in an interlocutory form to get me on my feet. I am always willing to get on my feet provided that when I do so I can keep in order on the subject under discussion. We have had this problem under consideration, and it is to be hoped that directly the Board hear of a price infringement they speedily will take the necessary action. Therefore, there would not be a long period of time during which the wrongdoer could accumulate excess profits.
But there is force in the suggestion made that the court, before whom proceedings are taken, should have the power to make an order ordering that the excess profits should be taken from the person who has infringed the Board's determination. I think that would meet the situation, and if that could be done it would be the right thing to do. But there are certain technical difficulties, by no means small, but we will give further consideration to this between now and the Report stage. We hope to find a way in which the technical difficulties can be satisfactorily surmounted.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: It is perfectly clear that the Clause in question, as framed, affords no power of any sort for the Chancery court or any other court to grant either damages or make an order that any excess profits that have been made and which are lining the pockets of the wrongdoer must be returned. The Solicitor-General said the Board would be expected to act expeditiously and effectively, but there might very well be a case where, over a prolonged and systematic period, a wrongdoer had put into the pockets of companies charging excess profits sums which they were not legally entitled to charge.
It is perfectly clear by the machinery of this Clause that that money could not be recovered. That is a scandalous state of affairs, particularly so if it were allowed to go on. Public opinion would demand that if this Board is to act as a policeman, as has been said already this evening, then it should be required that the law should be carried out and not flouted and that any of those most important breaches of the law in the matter of charging excess profits should be dealt with by the Board and that these people should be made to return the ill-gotten gains which they have received. Therefore, I hope that the Solicitor-General and the Government will see to it that this omission this casus omissis as I am sure it must be—will be put right.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28.-(DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION AND FALSE INFORMATION.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clase stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Jack Jones: There is one question I should like to ask. In the opening line of Clause 28 there is the reference to the disclosure of information in relation to a person or persons acquiring parts of the industry. Am I right in assuming that, in the event of a company being taken over by what would be new ownership, the workers in that particular company, if they wished to know the name of the new owner or owners, would have to get consent before they could ask for whom they were working?

The Solicitor-General: The answer to that question can be given very shortly. It is in the negative.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29.—(GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO ORDERS, REGULATIONS AND CONSENTS.)

Mr. Low: I beg to move, in page 22, line 44, after "Act," to insert:
or to regulations under section twenty-two of this Act." 
The object of this Amendment is to bring within the affirmative Resolution procedure the regulations under Clause 22, which are the compensation regulations to which, I am sure, the Committee will attach some importance, and will agree that the affirmative and not the negative Resolution procedure is the proper course.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Mr. Simon: I beg to move, in page 24, line 7, to leave out "about," and to insert "as to."
I think I can claim that this is the least momentous Amendment which is likely to be moved to this Bill, for it concerns a very minor point of drafting. Two words are used in adjacent subsections meaning precisely the same thing, and they ought to be the same. I must say that I was filled with a certain amount of trepidation when I put down this Amendment, because I knew that one half of the Committee, conscious of their duty as custodians of the treasure house of our language, would protest forcibly when I ventured to substitute "as to" for "about" and they would claim that it was a linguistic outrage. However, I was buoyed up with the thought that if I did it the other way round and ventured to substitute "about" for "as to," half of the Committee, probably the same half, conscious of their duty as custodians of our literature, would protest equally violently.

Mr. Low: I recommend to the Committee that we should accept this minor but excellent Amendment. I am very

glad that we should have been able to accept one of the Amendments moved by my hon. and learned Friend.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Sandys: I beg to move, in page 26, line 6, to leave out from "producers," to the end of line 7, and to insert:
of workers employed in the iron and steel industry, of persons using iron and steel products for manufacturing purposes or engaged in the menufacturing of such products, of workers employed in the undertakings of such persons, or of any class of such producers, workers or persons as aforesaid.
The Amendment is designed to widen the definition of the phrase "representative organisations" in the series of definitions in the Clause. Its purpose is to widen the area within which the Board will be required to consider consulting industry in regard to their various duties and functions. As the Committee know, in the various Clauses of the Bill there appears the requirement that before taking certain action, the Board shall consult representative organisations. This revised definition sets out the various types of organisation which the Board might in certain circumstances deem it appropriate to consult.
I should like to make it clear that the Board will not be expected to consult all the classes of organisation on all occasions and on all subjects. The decision as to precisely which organisations should be consulted and on which occasions and in regard to which questions, must be left to the discretion of the Board. For example, it would be wholly inappropriate for the Board to consult the engineering industry as consumers in regard to the importation of iron ore. On the other hand, it would be obviously most desirable that the Board should consult them in regard to the adequacy of finished steel supplies before deciding whether to arrange for any to be imported for the use of the metal using industries.
The Opposition have put down a series of Amendments at different places in the Bill seeking to make sure that the Board should not overlook the necessity, in appropriate cases, of consulting the trade unions. I think the Committee will agree that this revised Amendment, which was inspired by the Amendments put down by the Opposition, fully covers that point, and I hope that they will approve it.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Jack Jones: We on this side of the Committee are happy to accept the Amendment, and we thank the Minister for it. When we first looked at the Amendment—prior to today—we wondered whether the Board, with all the variety of work that yesterday, at least, we believed they would have to do, would have time to be able to carry out this extended duty that they are now being called upon to do. After today's debate, however, finding that the Board are to have very little to do effectively, we are glad that there is something, at least, upon which they will be able to concentrate with power to do something: that is, to consult the various types of organisation which deal not only with the production but with the disposal of steel, and so on. On that account, we are happy to accept the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 32 and 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(APPLICATION OF PRICE PROVISIONS TO CASTINGS AND FORGINGS.)

(1) Section seven of this Act shall not apply to any products of an activity included in paragraph 4 or paragraph 6 of the Third Schedule to this Act unless the Board have made a report to the Minister under the following provisions of this section and the Minister has made an order under those provisions directing that the said section seven is to apply to those products.
(2) If the Board consider, as respects any class of products of any such activity,

(a) that at least one-third by weight of the total annual output in Great Britain of products of that class is being produced by any one person, or by two or more persons, being interconnected bodies corporate within the meaning of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act, 1948; or
(b) that the producers of at least one-third by weight of the total annual output in Great Britain of products of that class whether voluntarily or not, and whether by agreement or arrangement or not, so conduct their respective affairs as in any way to prevent or restrict competition in connection with the supply of those products.


the Board may, by notice served on the producers of those products in Great Britain, require them to satisfy the Board, within three months from the date of the service of the notice, that the prices charged by them for those products are reasonable, or that they have taken steps to reduce those prices to a reasonable level.


(3) If the producers on whom a notice is served under the last preceding subsection fail to satisfy the Board of the matters aforesaid in accordance with the notice, and the Board make a report to that effect to the Minister, the Minister may, after consultation with such representative organisations as he considers appropriate, by order direct that section seven of this Act shall apply to the class of products to which the notice related.—[Mr. Sandys.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Sandys: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The Clause seeks to prescribe a special procedure for the price control of castings and forgings, which, we feel, fall into a different category from the iron and steel products at the heavy end of the industry. There are so many firms in this section of the industry—foundries and forges—and it is so relatively easy for newcomers to enter it, as compared with the great financial cost involved in entering the heavy end of the industry, that we feel that normally it is reasonable to rely upon competition to assure to the consumers protection against excessive prices.
In our view, almost the only circumstances in which the Board's intervention might be necessary to control prices of forgings and castings, is where a large part of the output of a certain product is in the hands of one firm or of a group of firms between whom there is some price ring arrangement. The Clause provides that in such circumstances the Board will be able to call upon the firms concerned to satisfy the Board within a period of three months that their prices are reasonable, or, alternatively, that those firms shall bring down their prices to a level which the Board are prepared to accept as being reasonable.
If, at the end of the three months, the Board report to the Minister that they are not satisfied that the prices of particular products in the foundry and forging industries are reasonable, the Minister, if he accepts the view of the Board, may issue an order authorising them to fix maximum prices in respect of the products concerned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Heeley (Mr. Roberts) has put down three Amendments, all of which, I understand, are designed to extend the application of this Clause to cover special steels for which the City of Sheffield is famous. We fully recognise the importance of


these high quality special steels for tool making and other purposes. In practice, it is exceedingly difficult to fix common prices for products whose value varies according to the different processes by which they are made. These special steels are made in comparatively small quantities by many firms. We therefore accept the view that special steels are to some extent in a similar position to castings and forgings in relation to price control and have sympathy with the proposal of my hon. Friend that special steels should be included within the scope of this Clause. However, before we can include a product within the scope of a Clause we first have to define what that product is.
As I understand, no satisfactory definition of a special steel has yet been found. We all know what we mean but it has not been found possible to set down on paper a satisfactory definition in legal form. The definition my hon. Friend used in his Amendment to Clause 31, which was not called, is the best definition that has so far been produced. That Amendment was, in page 26, line 11, at the end, to insert:
 special steel,' means either those steels containing not less than point six five per cent. carbon and made in electric arc higher frequency or crucible furnaces and used solely for the production of hand and machine cutting and forming tools, or those steels made in electric arc higher frequency or crucible furnaces and containing combinations of tungsten chrome vanadium molybdenum cobalt and having a total of these alloys of not less than one per cent. and not being stainless or heat-resisting, and used solely for the production of hand and machine cutting and forming tools.
It contains, however, a number of serious defects. In the first place, it would not cover steels made in open hearth furnaces, of which there are a considerable number. In the second place, it would not cover tool steels containing less than the specified 0.65 per cent. of carbon. Thirdly, the definition would not cover special steels which were not solely used for tool making. We feel that these shortcomings are so serious as to make it impossible for us to accept it. If, however, a satisfactory definition should be devised, I can assure my hon. Friend that I am quite prepared to consider including special steels within the scope of this new Clause and, with that assurance, I hope

that my hon. Friend will not press his Amendments.

Mr. P. Roberts: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for what he has said. I am sure that the Committee will realise the particular position held by special steels, especially in Sheffield, and the fact that they are made up very much by different concoctions and different ingredients chosen by individual firms. I am equally concerned that those interested in this matter should read what the Minister has said. I appreciate the difficulty of finding a proper definition and I also appreciate the remarks my right hon. Friend has made about the definition I put down. In view of the assurance he has given, that he will look at any other definition between now and Report stage, I do not propose to move the Amendments in my name.
It may be that if a definition can be found it can be considered on Report. If a definition cannot be found, I am fortified by the thought that very likely the Board will not be able to find a definition either and, therefore, may not find it easy to discover a definition by which prices will be referred back to the Board. I appreciate the way in which the Minister has dealt with this serious problem. Those who are interested in the matter, having now heard what he has to say, will be able to try to find a solution. If we cannot find a solution, I am satisfied that we shall be willing to accept the decision of the Board. We are satisfied that the Board will deal with this in a reasonable and practical manner.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: We do not disagree with the view expressed by the Minister. It is exceedingly difficult to fix maximum prices for the output of foundries or forgings. Special steels do not come under that particular category of iron and steeel products which can easily be controlled by maximum prices.
We do not quarrel with the Minister in making this concession, no doubt to complaints which were made by the interests concerned—complaints quite properly made and I do not complain about them. I would only point out that the fact that the Minister in moving the new Clause shows that he is doing something quite paradoxical. It means that he does not trust the common sense and intelligence


of the Board. The Board is to consist of people with the greatest intelligence, knowledge and understanding, but they are not bound to control all or any prices. They are given permissive powers to control prices of such products as they think correct to control. If the Board are to be understanding and intelligent one would expect that of their own volition they would not want to fix maximum prices of products where the fixing of maximum prices is undesirable.
What is happening is that the Minister is doing the work of the Board. I do not know whether he mistrusts the Board or is not sure that the people he is to choose will be wise and balanced in these matters. I can guess what the reason is.

New Clause.-(FURNISHING OF IN FORMATION TO BOARD AND MINISTER.)


(1) The Board may by notice in writing require any iron and steel producer to furnish to the Board information and forecasts with respect to his output and stocks of, and capacity to produce, any iron and steel products, his consumption and stocks of, and arrangements for procuring, raw materials or fuel for producing any such products, or any other matters relating to the production of any such products but not relating directly to the costs of production, being information and forecasts reasonably required by the Board for the purposes of their functions under this Act or by the Minister for the purposes of his functions under this Act.


(2) The Board or the Minister may by notice in writing require any iron and steel producer to furnish to the Board or, as the case may be, to the Minister such information as may reasonably be required by the Board for the purposes of their functions under section seven of this Act or, as the case may be, by the Minister for the purposes of his functions under section eight of this Act, and the notice may require any such information to be certified as correct by the auditors of the undertaking.


(3) The Board may by notice in writing require any person engaged in the importation into Great Britain, as a common service for iron and steel producers or any group thereof, of raw materials for use by those producers, to furnish to the Board information relating to such importation as aforesaid.


(4) It shall be the duty of every person on whom a notice is served under this section to comply with the notice and, if he fails to do so, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or, in the case of a second or subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds; and, if any default in respect of which any person is convicted under this subsection is continued after the conviction, he shall be guilty of a further offence punishable as aforesaid.—[Mr. Sandys.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Sandys: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause is designed to replace Clause 13, which was deleted at an earlier stage. Like the original Clause 13, it is intended—I emphasise this—to assure to the Board all the information which they will need to discharge their functions and duties. On the other hand—this is the difference between this Clause and the original Clause 13—it is drawn in such a way as will, we hope, discourage the Board from calling for unnecessary information and from worrying the industry needlessly with requests for returns and

The Minister has been anxious to accept the views of his industrialist friends who have put pressure on him. They have told him, "We fear that this Board may do something foolish and fix maximum prices where they ought not to fix them." The Minister has said, "I will put a new Clause in the Bill which will stop them doing that." We do not blame him, but I cannot help pointing out that in doing this the Minister is expressing distrust of the Board which he is to appoint. Having said that, we do not propose to oppose the new Clause.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

detailed costings information. With this sole object we have, in this new Clause, defined much more precisely than in the original version the types of information which the Board may need and the circumstances in which they may call for that information from particular sections of the industry.

Broadly, we have divided the information which the Board may require into three classes—production statistics, costs of production and importation of raw materials. Those are the three classes of information which the Board are likely to require in connection with their various duties and functions under the


Bill. In subsection (1) all producers who come within the scope of the supervision of the Board will be required, if asked by the Board to do so, to provide information or forecasts about their capacity, output, materials and stocks. This information is already regularly provided by the industry to the Government.

8.0 p.m.

In subsection (2) it is provided that the Board or the Minister may call upon the iron and steel companies to provide information about the production costs of those products covered by the price control powers of the Board not referred to in subsection (1). I am glad the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) recognises the justice of applying a slightly different procedure to the price control arrangements in respect of castings and forgings as compared with the rest of the industry.

Dividing the information obtainable under the two subsections will ensure that small firms—I am thinking particularly of foundries employing only a small number of men in a backyard—will not be hampered by bureaucratic officials, or asked to make extensive and frequent detailed costing reports. When any casting or forging is brought within the scope of Clause 7 of the Bill, by the procedure defined earlier, a firm producing them will be in the same position as producers in any other part of the industry.

In addition, we have introduced a new provision. We have authorised the Board to require information about costs to be certified by auditors, should they so wish. Subsection (3) ensures that the Board will be able to obtain the information they require about the importation of raw materials from such organisations as B.I.S.C. or B.I.S.C.(Ore) importing raw materials as a common service for the industry.

Subsection (4) provides penalties for failure to provide the Board or the Minister with information to which they are entitled. The penalties have deliberately been made the same as those set out in the Statistics of Trade Act, 1947. We feel that this type of information will be called for under much the same circumstances as those envisaged in that Act.

Clause read a Second time.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 5, to leave out, "but not relating directly to," and to insert "including."
In moving this Amendment, I propose to refer also to the next Amendment to the proposed Clause appearing on the Order Paper in my name, in line 11, at the end, to insert:
duty under section three of this Act or of their.
In one respect there is an improvement in this new Clause compared with the original Clause 13. This Clause enables the Board to obtain information from B.I.S.C. or B.I.S.C.(Ore), two very important agencies. Obviously, if the Board are to do their duty and ensure that the industry gets the raw materials required from abroad, they must have that information.
Under subsection (1) of this new Clause, the Board are able to obtain a variety of information from all producers, but there is one important exception which is stated categorically. They may not get any information relating directly to the cost of production. Although my legal friends tell me the wording is not clear, as subsections (1) and (2) conflict, I take it that under subsection (2), if the Board require any information about the cost of production in order to fix maximum prices, they can obtain it. I assume that to be the correct reading of this new Clause, although I have been advised that, in view of the denial of that information under subsection (1), it is not absolutely clear whether it can be demanded under subsection (2). Perhaps that point can be looked at, and if there is any doubt it may be cleared up.
I am concerned about the ban on the Board seeking essential information which I maintain they must have if they are to carry out their duties properly. There are two matters in which the powers of the Board to obtain information are insufficient. We dealt previously with the power to look at the books of companies on all matters affecting the duties of the Board and the power to inspect works. We say that in this Clause the Board should be given power to obtain information about the cost of production in the various units.
After all, under Clause 3 of the Bill the Board are entrusted with the duty of supervising the industry,
with a view to promoting the efficient, economic and adequate supply … of iron and steel products.
I assume that means that the Board have some responsibility for the efficiency of the industry, because there can be no other meaning in those words. The Board, therefore, must interest themselves substantially in promoting efficient production in the industry, and in order to do so they must know the production costs of the various units in the industry. That is a first essential. Without it the Board would be completely blind.
Here we are told that that is the one thing the Board may not ask about. Why is it excluded? The Minister is behaving as though the Board will upset the industry by rushing men all over the place to inspect plant, and by seeking information which they do not want, and which no one would conceivably want. It is only on that assumption that this restriction on the Board makes any sense at all.
We accept the argument put forward by the Minister when we were discussing the constitution of the Board that he is going to get the best and most knowledgeable and responsible people he can find and entrust them with the important task of looking after this industry, promoting its efficiency, guarding the public interest and so on.
If that is so, then the Board will not do anything idiotic and demand from all the companies an immense number of production figures which are unnecessary. If the Board want to be stupid and idiotic, they can already demand a whole lot of unnecessary information under subsection (1) of the new Clause. But one must assume that they are going to try to carry out the responsibilities placed upon them by Parliament. and if they are to do that they must have access to the production costs of the various units in the industry.
That, however, is deliberately denied to the Board in this new Clause, and we seek to remedy that deficiency. Why is the Minister restricting the Board in this way? They were not restricted under the original Clause 13, which gave them power to ask such questions when they

thought necessary. But that power is now taken away from them, and one is driven to the conclusion that certain sections of the industry so mistrust the Board and any form of public supervision that they are determined to make that supervision as harmless and as useless as possible. They have succeeded to some extent by inducing the Minister to take away from the Board certain essential powers, one of them the power to get this essential information about production costs.
We say that is wholly wrong. We want the Board to have all the information necessary to carry out their duties properly, and that is why we have put down this Amendment. We say, moreover, that the Board shall be entitled to get any information they require in order to carry out their duties under the Bill, which duties are set out very clearly in Clause 3. I very much hope that in view of the arguments I have advanced the Minister will tell us that he will either accept the Amendments as they stand or will consider the matter between now and the Report stage so that we may have a further opportunity of considering it then. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is not impressed by my arguments because he thinks I am prejudiced. But I have advanced arguments to show that this is not purely a political matter, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the views I have expressed are held very strongly by my colleagues. In these circumstances, I trust that he will accept the principle which I have put to the Committee.

Mr. Sandys: The right hon. Gentleman asks whether I accept the principle of his Amendments. I am not quite sure what he means, because the principle is, of course, one of the things on which I do not think there is any disagreement. As he says, it is not a political point. The principle is that the Board must have all the information they need in order effectively to carry out the duties entrusted to them by Parliament. That must be the overriding consideration in drawing up this Clause. Subject to that, we consider it desirable to restrict the Board's right to ask for information to such things as are strictly necessary for the discharge of their duties.
The right hon. Gentleman very fairly said that we must rely on the Board being


wise and sensible and on their not asking for information which they do not need. Of course, had we adopted that point of view, which is very sound, and one to which I would like to have adhered from the start, we would not have accepted quite a number of Amendments proposed by the party opposite. My approach towards the Amendments has been throughout that, if there is genuine doubt and anxiety, whether among hon. Members opposite or in the industry outside, we should, as far as practicable and without interfering with the purpose of the Bill, insert into it words which will clarify our intentions and allay any doubts there may be.
8.15 p.m.
I do not conceal the fact that there has been a considerable amount of anxiety in the industry about the possibility of the Board using their rather sweeping powers to call for information—powers which were provided in the original Clause 13—to burden the industry with a mass of bureaucratic returns and forms which would be irksome and tiresome. particularly for the small foundries and forges, many of which have not the clerical organisation to deal with such things.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Part of that was political.

Mr. Sandys: I think that is a very unfair remark for the hon. Member to make. The anxieties which have been expressed were not political, but were genuinely put forward.

Mr. Smith: I do not mean on your part; I mean with regard to the opposition outside.

Mr. Sandys: I do not know about the opposition; the hon. Member knows more about that.
The question is not really whether it is right to restrict the Board's unlimited power to call for information. It is whether the scope of this Clause will be sufficient to provide the Board with the information they need. If it is, then I feel we have met the case and that there can be no advantage, and may, indeed, be some disadvantage, in giving the Board the right to call for information which they would not require.
The particular question which the right hon. Gentleman raises is that of the Board's right to obtain information about production costs. As he pointed out, the Board can under subsection (2) obtain information about production costs, and I agree that it is linked to Clause 7 which sets out the price-fixing powers. The question is whether, in fact, that will prevent the Board from obtaining the information which they genuinely require for carrying out their duties. I do not believe that it will.
I explained why we had separated the powers to call for information, and I think the right hon. Gentleman had some sympathy with the reasons I adduced. The question is whether the Board will be unable to obtain the information they require about costs except strictly in relation to price fixing. In what circumstances will the Board want to know about production costs? In the main, of course, it will be in connection with price-fixing, but they may also require it in connection with their general supervision over the efficiency of the industry; I think that was the point made by the right hon. Gentleman.
I submit that the initial approach of the Board to production costs, will be to look at the prices charged by the industry and to form an opinion as to whether, compared with prices in other countries, the industry appears to be producing efficiently. If the prices are reasonable they are a fair indication of the efficiency of the industry. If the margin of profit is not excessive, quite clearly the prices directly reflect the cost of production. If, on the other hand, the Board suspect that prices are unreasonably high there is a prima facie case for them to consider whether they should fix maximum prices if they have not already done so in respect of these particular products. They can then, straight away, call for production costs under subsection (2). I suggest, therefore, that, in practice, the Board will be able to obtain all the information they require for the discharge of their duties.
I will certainly look into the legal point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall. I have not had time to consult Parliamentary counsel about it and it had not occurred to me that subsection (2) did not stand on its own feet.

Mr. George Darling: The first case made out by the Minister was very much stronger than the one to which we have just listened. In trying to explain the rather weak powers which the Board have in these matters, the right hon. Gentleman has put forward suggestions about measuring efficiency which would not be accepted by any industrial efficiency expert anywhere in the country. It is absolutely impossible to measure industrial efficiency without making a detailed examination of the costs of production.
It is no use taking the final price charged to the consumer as a basis, because all sorts of things go into the final price which have no relation at all to production costs. Prices might be fixed by a really efficient producer who realised that his competitors were not efficient and he would be making excessive profits which might limit his efficiency.
Clause 3 says of the functions of the Board that
It shall be the duty of the Board to exercise a general supervision over the iron and steel industry, with a view to promoting the efficient, economic and adequate supply under competitive conditions of iron and steel products,….
In my view it is quite impossible to carry out those duties unless there is the fullest investigation, not necessarily into all the details of all the 2,000-odd companies which will be taken over, but into the main lines of production of the industry, into representative firms and into their costs of production and other relevant matters, year in and year out, while the work of the Board goes on.
As the Minister himself has said, the Board must have all the information that they need to carry out the duties laid down by Parliament in this Bill. The best way to ensure that is to accept these Amendments, and particularly that which states quite clearly that the Board, by notice in writing, may require the information that is needed for the Board to carry out their duties. That is wide enough. It gives the Board the opportunity to carry out their duties. The Minister has suggested that they must have all the information necessary. To accept these Amendments would be to make that position secure.
I suggest also that something might happen which I sincerely hope will not

happen in relation to subsection (3) of this new Clause, which deals with imports. If the new Iron and Steel Board get into some kind of dispute with B.I.S.C. (Ore), then B.I.S.C. (Ore) can refuse to supply information to the Board as long as a dispute is going on. As a result of the legal case which would follow their refusal, subsection (4) lays down that B.I.S.C. (Ore) can be fined £50. That would be worth nothing at all as a penalty to the Iron and Steel Federation. Having regard to the size of the industry, I would ask the Minister, in relation to subsection (4), to reconsider whether the pattern which he is following of the statistical information required by the Board of Trade—which he has taken as a model in this case—is sufficient for the purposes which we have in view in this Bill.
It is not only in relation to B.I.S.C. (Ore) that subsection (3) may have to be brought into operation. The Iron and Steel Federation might compel companies associated with them to withhold information and in such circumstances the penalties provided in subsection (4) would be totally inadequate. In any case, I imagine that if a dispute arose, the Federation might set aside beforehand out of their million-a-year income a sum to compensate such companies as refused the requested information. That kind of thing almost happened under the aegis of the Corporation and I hope it will not happen under this Board. I hope that we are prepared to deal with the Iron and Steel Federation if they stand out. I believe that these Amendments ought to be accepted by the Minister on the ground of the public interest.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I want to make only a brief comment on the speech of the Minister because he echoed a thought which he expressed on a previous occasion and it will be very dangerous if he continues along that line of thought. His argument was that if the Board wanted to get greater efficiency in this industry it was not necessary for them to ask what were the production costs of the various units. He said that inefficiency would be shown by the high prices charged by certain units in the industry; the Board would be able to use the weapon of maximum price fixing, and when they did so they would be able to ask for production costs.
Apart from the fact that that is a very clumsy way of discovering what are the production costs, I suggest that the Minister must think very carefully about his idea that the Board will be able to increase the efficiency of the industry by playing about with maximum prices. That is quite a hopeless weapon for this purpose, although I think the Minister believes it is a useful one. If certain units in the industry are inefficient it is not the slightest use clamping down maximum prices below those which the industry is charging. It may result in driving a unit out of production altogether. In any case, it may not be possible to discover what is wrong, and I cannot think of a more clumsy method of creating greater efficiency in the industry.

I do not want to pursue the matter further because it does not arise very directly on this Amendment, but I thought it necessary to comment upon what I regard as a dangerous thought in the right hon. Gentleman's mind. We are completely dissatisfied with the reply he has given. We believe that the Board should have powers by which they can make comparisons, obtain a proper picture of the industry and take the necessary steps to create efficiency. They should be empowered to ascertain what are the comparable production costs in various units, and as the Minister has rejected that argument we propose to divide the Committee on this Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 252; Noes, 236.

Division No. 109.]
AYES
[8.32 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Colegate, W. A.
Heald, Sir Lionel


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Heath, Edward


Alport, C. J. M.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Higgs, J. M. C


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Cranborne, Viscount
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Arbuthnot, John
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Crouch, R. F.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Holt, A. F.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Davidson, Viscountess
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Baldwin, A. E.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Horobin, I. M.


Banks, Col. C.
Deedes, W. F.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence


Barber, Anthony
Digby, S. Wingfield
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Barlow, Sir John
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)


Baxter, A. B.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Conner, P. W.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hurd, A. R.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Drewe, C.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Duthie, W. S.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Birch, Nigel
Erroll, F. J.
Jennings, R.


Bishop, F. P.
Fell, A
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Black, C. W.
Finlay, Graeme
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Boothby, R. J. G
Fisher, Nigel
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W


Bossom, A. C.
Fort, R.
Kaberry, D


Bowen, E. R.
Foster, John
Kerr, H. W.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Lambert, Hon. G


Boyle, Sir Edward
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D (Pollok)
Lambton, Viscount


Braine, B. R.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lancaster, Col. C. G


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Godber, J. B
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Gough, C. F. H
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Gower, H. R
Linstead, H. N


Brooman-White, R. C.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Llewellyn, D. T


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G T.
Grimo[...]d, J.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Bullard, D. G.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Longden, Gilbert


Bullock, Capt. M.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Low, A. R. W.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Burden, F. F. A.
Harden J. R. E.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Butler, Rt Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Campbell, Sir David
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S


Carr, Robert
Harrison, Col J. H. (Eye)
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Channon, H.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
McKibbin, A. J.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Cole, Norman
Hay, John
Maclean, Fitzroy




Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Pickthorn, K W. M.
Stevens, G. P.


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Pitman, I. J
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Powell, J Enoch
Storey, S.


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Stuart, Rt. Hon James (Moray)


Markham, Major S. F.
Profumo, J. D.
Studholme, H. G.


Marples, A. E.
Raikes, Sir Victor
Summers, G S.


Maude, Angus
Rayner, Brig. R.
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Maudling, R.
Redmayne, M.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Teeling, W.


Medlicott, Brig. F.
Renton, D. L. M.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Mellor, Sir John
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Molson, A. H. E.
Robertson, Sir David
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Robson-Brown, W.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Nicholls, Harmar
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Tilney, John


Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Roper, Sir Harold
Turner, H. F. L


Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Russell, R. S.
Turton, R. H.


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Vosper, D. F.


Nugent, G. R. H.
Savory, Prof Sir Douglas
Wade, D. W.


Nutting, Anthony
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Oakshott, H. D.
Scott, R. Donald
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Odey, G. W.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Shepherd, William
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Orr, Capt. L. P. S
Smithers. Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Soames, Capt. C.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Osborne, C.
Spearman, A. C. M.
York, C.


Peaks, Rt. Hon. O
Speir, R. M.



Perkins, W. R. D.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Pete, Brig. C. H. M.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Sir H. Butcher and Mr. Wills.




NOES


Adams, Richard
Dodds, N. N.
Janner, B.


Albu, A. H.
Donnelly, D. L.
Jay, Rt. Hon, D. P. T.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Jeger, George (Goole)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Edelman, M.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)


Attlee, Rt Hon. C. R.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Awbery, S. S
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)


Balfour, A.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Jones. Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Bartley, P.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Ballenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Bence, C. R.
Fernyhough, E.
Keenan, W.


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Fienburgh, W.
Kenyon, C.


Benson, G.
Finch, H. J.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Beswick, F.
Fletcher, Erio (Islington, E.)
King, Dr. H. M.


Blackburn, F.
Follick, M.
Kinky, J.


Blenkinsop, A.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Blyton, W. R.
Freeman, John (Watford)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Boardman, H.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Gibson, C. W.
Lewis, Arthur


Brockway, A. F.
Glanville, James
Lindgren, G. S.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Gordon [...]alker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
MaeColl, J E


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McGhee, H. G


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
McGovern, J.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
McInnes, J.


Callaghan, L. J.
Hamilton, W. W.
McLeavy, F.


Champion, A. J.
Hannan, W.
MacMillan. M K. (Western Isles)


Chapman, W. D.
Hardy, E. A.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Clunie, J.
Hargreaves, A
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Collick, P. H
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Mainwaring, W. H


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hastings, S.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Cove, W. G.
Hayman, F. H.
Mallalieu, J. P W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hobson, C. R.
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Crosland, C. A. R.
Holman, P
Manuel, A. C.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Mayhew, C. P.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Houghton, Douglas
Mellish, R. J


Daines, P.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Messer, F.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mikardo, Ian


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Mitchison, G. R


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Monslow, W.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Moody, A. S.


Davies. Stephen (Merthyr)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Morley, R.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Deer, G.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Delargy, H. J
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Mort, D. L.







Moyle, A.
Ross, William
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Murray, J. D.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Viant, S. P.


Nally, W.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Wallace, H. W.


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E
Watkins, T. E.


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P J
Short, E W
Webb, Rt. Hon- M. (Bradford, C.)


Oldfield, W. H.
Shurmer, P L. E.
Weitzman, D.


Oliver, G. H.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Oswald, T.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Wells, William (Walsall)


Padley, W. E.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
West, D. G.


Paget, R. T.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Palmer, A. M. F.
Sorensen, R. W.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Pannell, Charles
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Pargiter, G. A.
Steele, T.
Wigg, George


Paton, J.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B


Peart, T. F.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Plummer, Sir Leslie
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Willey, F. T.


Popplewell, E.
Stross, Dr. Barnett
Williams, David (Neath)


Porter, G.
Swingler, S. T.
Williams, Rev Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Price, Joseph (Westhoughton)
Sylvester, G. O.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Proctor, W. T.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Pryde, D. J
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Pursey, Cmdr. H
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Rankin, John
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Reeves, J.
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Reid, William (Camlaehie)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Wyatt, W. L.


Rhodes, H
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Yates, V. F.


Robens, Rt. Hon A.
Thornton, E
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thurtle, Ernest



Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Timmons, J
TELLERS FOR TILE NOES:


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Tomney, F.
Mr. Bowden end Mr. Pearson


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Turner-Samuels, M



Question put. and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(RELATIONS OF THE BOARD WITH THE EUROPEAN STEEL COMMUNITY.)

(1) The Minister shall keep the Board informed of the proceedings of the Institutions of the European Coal and Steel Community, so far as such proceedings are within his knowledge and relevant to the duties of the Board under this Act.
(2) The Minister shall consult the Board and consider any advice tendered to him by the Board as regards any instructions or representations sent to the delegation accredited to the High Authority by Her Majesty's Government.
(3) The Board may require iron and steel producers from time to time to furnish the Board with such information as the Board may require for the purpose of tendering advice to the Minister under the last preceding subsection of this section.
(4) Nothing in this section shall oblige the Minister to disclose to the Board any matter which in his opinion it is not in the national interest to disclose to them.
(5) In this section—
the European Coal and Steel Community" means the European Coal and Steel Community instituted under a Treaty made at Paris on the eighteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and fifty-one, between the President of the German Federal Republic, His Royal Highness the Prince Royal of Belgium, the President of the French Republic. the President of the Italian Republic. Her Royal Highness the Grand Duchess of Luxembourg and Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands.
the Institutions" means the Institutions referred to in Article 7 of the said Treaty.

the High Authority "means the High Authority which is one of the Institutions.— [Mr. Robens.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Alfred Robens (Blyth): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
We are seeking to have within the Bill the necessary powers to enable the Board to have a link with the European Coal and Steel Community. We have understood that to be Government policy. It does seem strange that while on the Continent there is great integration taking place in the steel industry, we in this country should, by this Bill, be disintegrating what was promising to be a really sound organisation which could deal most effectively with this enormous cartel now being erected, and indeed working, on the Continent, and which is going to prove to be a very serious competitor to us in this country as the years go by.
What has been happening on the Continent cannot have passed unnoticed by the Minister, because he spent some time at the Council of Europe at Strasbourg pressing the need for European unity. One could quote extensively from speeches that he has made on that subject. I am sure they are well in his mind at the moment, and I do not suppose for a moment he has gone back on the things in which he then believed.
But we have a situation in which there is a common market for coal and scrap iron and iron ore, and it is in operation. On the 10th of this month the first stage of the Schuman Plan was effected to organise this common market, and in April there will be a common market for steel. What does that mean? It means that European prices are all to be brought into line; restrictive practices are to be removed. Transport restrictions are to be removed and all tariffs and duties between the six European nations who are members of the Community will also be removed. What is important is that the Community has already obtained a waiver from the G.A.T.T. Agreement to enable them so to do. Therefore, we have at the moment this great industry on the Continent gradually becoming integrated, with a steel production of something like 41 million tons a year. That is, indeed, a very formidable size of organisation.
8.45 p.m.
As I understand the Bill, the Board are restricted to powers of supervision within the United Kingdom. That will not be sufficient if we are to have this close link with the Schuman Community. It is necessary, in our view, that the powers which we are laying down in this new Clause should be given to the Board, or else there cannot be this link with the new Community which is essential to the steel industry of this country and to its general economy.
The Treaty provides for the High Authority of the Community to undertake negotiations with Governments of third countries and particularly—and this is mentioned in the Treaty—with Great Britain. The Government announced that they had as a policy close and enduring associations with the High Authority. The right hon. Gentleman must endorse the policy of his own Government because it so closely relates to what he said at Strasbourg. If I may say so, without wanting to be particularly offensive, whilst we have been in opposition the Council of Europe has been steadily carrying out the policy which we pursued while in Government, and the stock of the right hon. Gentleman is very much lower on the Continent today than it was when he was in opposition.
Of course, he is not alone in that matter. The right hon. Gentleman the

Minister for Housing and Local Government, when he was in opposition, in dealing with the Schuman Plan, in November, 1950, said:
They will readily understand"—
and the "they" were all the Representatives assembled at the Council of Europe—
the hesitation, and indeed embarrassment, which I feel, for, to my great disappointment, the European Coal and Steel Pact, which we are told has now been agreed by expert advisers and is about to be submitted for ratification to the Governments and Parliaments of six European nations, does not include in its scope the largest producer and, I think I may add, the largest consumer of steel and coal in Europe. It is a European Pact to which Britain is not a party. It marks a stage in the development of European co-operation in reaching which Britain has played no part.
The next year he came back to this matter, and said, in May, 1951:
Unless, therefore, some effective method can be found of associating Great Britain with the new Authority, we may all have to pay a heavy price for this omission, for it is a great error to suppose that, even in its technical aspect, the Schuman Plan holds out advantages only in a period of slump or deflation.
There is on record both in this country and abroad the clear indication that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, when they were in opposition, were most anxious to have this close association with the Schuman Plan.
Our views about close association are well-known and, indeed, when the present Government came to power they continued the policy in this matter of Europe and the Schuman Plan which the Labour Government had initiated. Indeed, the Declaration of Washington, to which my right hon. Friend was a party, has been the basis on which this Government's policy has been built. I am not now discussing, nor would it be in order, the pros and cons of actually joining the Community, but I am concerned with the official policy of the Government and the effect of the Bill. Clearly, the Government mean that they contemplate an agreement with the Community, and surely the word "enduring" is an earnest of that. That means that some at least of the effective provisions of the Treaty would be binding upon the coal and steel industries of the United Kingdom.
Article 76 of the proposed statute—this is something with which we have been


dealing in great detail in Paris and Strasbourg over the last 18 months—deals with the kind of "association" which the Continental countries understand. When we speak of "association" we must remember that it is what the people of the Continent think about "association" that really matters, for they have the Community and it is they who will admit the close association, just as it is we who have to decide how far our association can go.
It will not be sufficient for us to say that we regard "close association" in such and such a way and expect the Community to accept that. They will not do so; they will only accept "close association" on the basis which they themselves are prepared to accept it. Article 75 of the statute says:
By the terms of Article 55 the Community may conclude treaties of agreements of association with European non-Member States…
It goes on:
…the object of such treaties or agreements being the establishment in certain fields of close collaboration, implying reciprocal rights and obligations.
We must not forget the last two words, "and obligations." The Community mean that we shall accept obligations along with any rights that we may have. One of the obligations is to exchange information and hold mutual consultations, and that provision is contained in Article 76.
The Clause is designed to assist the Government in the policy which they have enunciated and bring it into conformity with what the continental countries have decided shall be their statute to govern the Schuman Assembly. The present arrangement is that we have a very high-powered delegation to the High Authority at Luxembourg. It is led by a very eminent and well-qualified man, Sir Cecil Weir. At the beginning the association was prompt; it was psychologically good that Britain should come in quickly with that kind of association. At the beginning it was acceptable, but it will not be acceptable later as the statute comes into operation.
There will be no problem about the coal industry and association, because within that industry the National Coal Board has all the necessary authority to

gather the information required to keep our delegation advised and to keep any other kind of association fully advised as to the position in the British coal industry. But we cannot now say the same about steel. It will not be possible to work for the close association as the Continental countries mean it unless a Clause of this character, giving powers to the Board, is incorporated in the Bill.
Under the Schuman Plan matters affecting production, investment, prices, restrictive practices, limitations, wage reductions —that is an important consideration for the industry—and a whole host of others are their responsibility. On all those matters they will want very close association with the British steel industry, and if they do not we should. It is highly important that we should not, as a result of the setting up of this great cartel on the Continent, find it is to the great detriment of the steel industry here through reasons which we could, in fact, control.
I hope that the Minister will look at this new Clause, not from the point of view that we are being unhelpful about this part of the Bill, but from a recognition of our intense desire and earnestness to see this Clause become a reality and thus protect the steel industry, upon the success of which the lives of so many people depend. As I understand this Bill, we cannot deal with any of the matters I have mentioned, with the possible exception of maximum prices, because neither the Minister nor the Board has the powers. Without a Clause such as this, the Bill is an indirect method of informing the European Steel and Coal Community and the six Governments concerned that the United Kingdom has no intention of subscribing to the provisions of the Treaty. I am sure hon. Gentlemen opposite would admit that that would be an extremely bad thing, not only for the industry but for the joint political arrangements between us and the countries concerned.
But I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government's policy about this Clause and the indirect association mean any more than the Prime Minister's support for a European Army before he took office, or whether it means just that? When hon. Gentlemen opposite were at Strasbourg and not in office they took one point of view, but on obtaining


office they made a complete change of front. This has been a source of great resentment to the Continental countries, and as the stock of the party opposite has gone down the stock of the party on this side of the House has gone up enormously. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite were not there, but I can tell them that the stock of this party in the Council of Europe has risen immeasurably as the stock of the Conservative Party has gone down.

Mr. P. Roberts: I was at Strasbourg when the Socialist Government turned down the invitation to enter the iron and steel scheme.

Mr. Robens: Precisely, and for very good reasons which were advanced at the time when hon. Gentlemen opposite were urging us to go into it.

The Temporary Chairman (Colonel Sir Leonard Ropner): I think the discussion is going a little wide of the new Clause.

Mr. Robens: I appreciate that, but we have the picture here of the Conservatives voting for, and approving of, integration of transport and other things in Europe, whilst in this House they are disintegrating both transport and steel. That seems a queer sort of policy in these days.
If the policy which the Government have announced with regard to close association means anything at all, the right hon. Gentleman will accept the proposed new Clause. If he does not accept it, he will cause bitter disappointment not only in the United Kingdom but on the Continent. This is a constructive Clause designed to enable the Government to carry out their own policy, which we have advocated through the years in the interests of European unity.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Robson Brown: I rise to give the proposed new Clause my general support, and I hope that the Minister will accept in some form the intentions outlined in it. I have followed the development of the Schuman Plan from its inception to the present time. No man can measure now its impact upon the economy of Europe and its effect upon the steel manufacturing of Great Britain and the world. The European Coal and Steel Community is now a living reality. I hope it has come to stay, because it can effect dynamic changes in the political

and industrial life of Europe. I can only describe it as the most radical change in thinking that has taken place in Europe, a change for the better.
The British Board cannot function either with efficiency or realism unless they are most closely informed about all developments in this Coal and Steel Community, and about our Government's intentions either explicit or tentative with regard to contacts at Government level with the Schuman Plan and the Com. munity. It most certainly requires that it should accept as a clear and important part of its duties this contract with the European Coal and Steel Community. One of the fundamental functions of the Board is to keep abreast not only with European steel developments, important as they may be, but with all international developments in steel in any way or in any form.
The Board should be expected to keep the Government advised, and to be the Government's expert on all matters in the whole field of international steel negotiations. I believe that the surest way in which steel producers of the world can ensure stability and avoid the internecine price warfare we knew before the war is for them to set up world machinery which can make international cooperation of steelmakers throughout the world possible, desirable and effective.

Mr. William Blyton: This is the first time I have spoken in an iron and steel debate, and I do it on the proposed new Clause only because I was at Strasbourg and put the Labour Party's point of view on the Schuman Plan. The Minister of Supply and I crossed swords on this question while in Strasbourg.
I am pleased to say that, although hon. Gentlemen opposite were opposed to the point of view that I was putting when we were in power, they are now advocating the policy we then enunciated. If the Minister does not accept the proposed Clause that will be taken on the Continent as a reason for questioning even the acceptance of world liaison, because we shall not have a board to give them information about our steel developments.
There is no doubt that we have to arrive at Government agreements on certain things. We offered these on prices, on marketing, on wages, on the question of discriminatory practices


connected with steel and coal. We have a trade union delegation there now on an international scale working with our delegation and maintaining liaison with the High Authority.
If the Minister does not give powers to the Board, how will the delegation get to know what our capital expenditure on development is to be and how shall we get to know the future trends of the market? We may, for instance, face a slump, and if the Board are not able to supply information we may find that the High Authority, because of the absence of information, will apply discriminatory sanctions against us on the Continent. Therefore, it is imperative that in this Bill we should give powers to the Minister and the Board to see that the High Authority is kept fully informed of the industry.
We have to face a new phase. There is to be a single integrated market in Europe, and the National Coal Board have direct contact with the delegation that is over there. There is nothing in this Bill, however, to define what will be the relationship of the new set-up of the steel industry with the coal and steel plan. Then, again, we have to protect our traditional markets. I believe that the next two years will be very important in the economic life of this country. We must see that our delegation, working in close liaison, trying to make those international agreements that we have always said should be made, is given so much information that it will he in a position to impart that information which is so necessary to our traditional markets. Unless the Board have this power, I cannot see my ideas coming to fruition.
One thing disturbs me. It is that we shall only be able to discuss what the Coal and Steel Community will do through the Council of Europe. They cannot make decisions. Only the High Authority, with the delegation. can make agreements for us. I want the Board, under this Bill, to act as a voice in the Coal and Steel Assembly, where decisions are made, in order to protect us against any decisions being made which are derogatory to our economy.
I am not asking for us to be full members. I am not asking for a vote. I am asking for a voice when decisions are

made, because all that can be done in the Council of Europe is to talk about any decision that may be derogatory to us, and that will be at the end of the day because the decisions will be made in the Assembly of the Coal and Steel Community.
Therefore, because this is such an important matter for the economic life both of Europe and of ourselves, and because I have no desire, either in my own industry or in steel, to see a return to the shambles of the inter-war years, with so much cut-throat competition in relation to both these basic industries, resulting in such miserable wages for the men, that I implore the Minister to take these powers that we are suggesting so that we can get the close relationship that all of us desire.

Mr. Spencer Summers: I add my voice to those who have expressed the desire that in some way my right hon. Friend will ensure that, after the passage of the Bill, all the appropriate facilities for working in close association with the European Coal and Steel Community are available.
I was sorry that in commending the Clause the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) advanced the two arguments he did. The first was that if the Clause could not be accepted it would be interpreted on the Continent as if the Government were setting their face against association. I hope the right hon Gentleman will agree that it was not necessary to commend the Clause in such exaggerated terms. Subject to what the Minister may have to say, there is no reason whatever why the mere action of declining to accept the proposal in this form should be interpreted in that way

Mr. P. Roberts: Will my hon. Friend—

Mr. Summers: I am sorry, but I do not want to take too long.
The right hon. Gentleman also went on to say that it would not be practicable, without an amendment of this kind to the Bill, for the necessary association to take place between the Minister, the Board and the Continent. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that there was a very effective association with Continental producers before the war, of which I have personal experience.

Mr. Blyton: We knew that to our sorrow.

Mr. Summers: This is not the time to argue the merits of that, but opinion has changed drastically and I am very glad to find so many Members on the opposite side of the Committee who realise that co-operation between nations in the steel industry has so much to commend it.

Mr. Robens: Would the hon. Member not agree that before the war the arrangements between the industries were secret? On this occasion they will be open to the world, because there will be a public assembly at which these matters will be discussed by Parliamentarians.

Mr. Summers: I do not want to be diverted, but it is quite untrue to say that those arrangements were secret. Full knowledge of the facts was available to the Government of the day, and to that extent they were not secret.
I hope the Minister may find it possible to assure the Committee that when the Bill is passed there will be adequate facilities for the Board, the Minister, and the industry to play their full parts in such development between nations in this field as may seem appropriate.

Mr. G. Darling: I will not follow the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers) in a discussion about what occurred before the war. We could have quite a long talk about the extent to which the arrangements in those days were secret or public; I do not know whether we should come to any agreement at the end, but it would be quite interesting.
The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown) expressed our general aims I hope they are general throughout the Committee—and views in a manner which, I am sure, we all support. I think he will agree, however, that one of the jobs that we must do in this Committee is to find out how we can fulfil in some kind of practical way the aims upon which we all agree.
At first sight the Clause, which we have put down to achieve to some extent that purpose, appears to be somewhat narrow. It asks, first, that the Minister should inform the Board about what is going on at the High Authority at Luxembourg;

and, second, that the Minister should consult the Board—the emphasis, it will be noticed, is on the Minister's powers, which I think is perfectly right—before giving advice or instructions to our permanent delegation at Luxembourg. The Clause asks, third, that in order to enable this to be done, the Board should have authority to ask the steel companies for information that will make all this work possible, satisfactory and successful.
The most important point in all this is subsection(2),regarding the instructions to be given to our permanent delegation to the High Authority. We have to look at this matter against the background of the aims and claims of the Community. In order that this Clause can be properly understood, we have to make some assumptions about our own reactions to those claims. It seems perfectly clear that the Community are bound to have considerable inflence upon the development plans of the British steel industry; that is inevitable. For that reason it is quite right that we should put the often expressed desire for close collaboration with the Community into something like formal terms.
It is a great pity that the first discussion in this Parliament of the Coal and Steel Community and our interests associated with it should be on the Committee stage of this Bill. In my view the Government have made a very serious political blunder not only in hamstringing our discussions here, but also in the effect their failure to hold discussions will have on the Continent and in Western Europe. In preventing any effective Parliamentary discussion, not only of our association with the Coal and Steel Community. which is very important to us, but any real discussion of the work of the Council of Europe at Strasbourg, any real discussion of the European Defence Community. and any discussion at all—

9.15 p.m.

The Temporary Chairman (Colonel Sir Leonard Ropner): The hon. Member is getting a little wide of the new Clause.

Mr. Darling: I was going to say that all this is implicit in our proposed new Clause. It is a political tragedy that we have not even discussed the new political authority which is to be set up, because it is proposed that that political authority


should take over the Coal and Steel Community. Seeing that that is proposed I should have thought that what I was saying was in order.
It is a tragedy that of all the free Parliaments of Western Europe ours is the only one which has not had any formal discussion of the Coal and Steel Community. We have not even had a discussion of the so-called Eden Plan, which is associated with all this. I noticed in the first report of the Coal and Steel Community that the High Authority places tribute for our collaboration where it should lie; that is, with the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), in Washington, in September, 1951, when he was Foreign Secretary. It is from that that our association with the Coal and Steel Community has flowed.
The important thing to notice in this discussion is the functions which are now flowing from that association. As hon. Members probably know, a joint committee has been set up between the High Authority and the British permanent delegation to the High Authority at Luxembourg. I do not know whether the Committee are aware of the duties and functions that have been placed on that joint committee without any Parliamentary discussion here.

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member is going too far beyond the terms of the new Clause, which relates to the relations of the Board with the European Coal and Steel Community. Will he please confine his remarks to that?

Mr. Darling: With all respect, Sir Leonard, the duties which are put upon the joint committee are closely associated with this Clause. In fact, we are asking the Minister to inform the Board and to inform Parliament of what this joint committee is doing. I think it important that we should all know what the joint committee at Luxembourg is to do so that the duties of the Minister can be thoroughly understood. The joint committee is
to organise the mutual exchange of information on the forecasts and objectives
of the United Kingdom and the Community in respect of
investments, production, supplies and markets.

It will
establish permanent facilities for consultation on questions which either associated party wishes to raise
and
create an institutional framework permanently assuring concerted action between Great Britain and the European Coal and Steel Community which the High Authority wishes to make as comprehensive as possible.
This is what is now being done and there has been no Parliamentary discussion here about it. I am not complaining about what has been done, because this is the kind of close association we all want, and wish to make possible by the terms of our new Clause.
I am not sure that we all realise the size and scope of the iron and steel industry now being created on the Continent. In the words of the Community itself, it will extend
from Hamburg to Naples and from Brest to Venice, the entire European territory of these six countries. But all this territory is only for two industries, coal and steel, that the establishment of the Community and the action of the High Authority is going to abolish frontiers, eliminate customs duties, quotas, discriminations, and restrictive practices, and open a common market for 155 million consumers, a market as vast as that of the United States or the Soviet Union.
Apart altogether from the desire to foster European unity, we want a close association with this vast organisation for our own sake. In developing our association we must be prepared to adjust our own plans, so far as is practicable, to fit in with what the Community wishes to do; and at the same time our own plans ought to influence the Community. Let me give an example.
Some of the Community developments would be better planned on the basis that they will get imported coke for their blast furnaces and steel developments. That is brought out fairly clearly in the first report of the Community. Could we not make firm arrangements to supply the Community with coke and build new coke ovens on our eastern coast—perhaps in Fife and Durham, and on the Humber, to tap the neighbouring coalfields—and develop that sort of trade on a permanent footing with the Community? Both Britain and the Community will be making increasingly heavy demands—

Mr. P. Roberts: On a point of order. Although this is extremely interesting, the


point we are discussing is the instructions and representations to be sent to our delegation accredited to the High Authority. I cannot see how the remarks of the hon. Member are related to that.

The Temporary Chairman: The Committee has made good progress and I have no desire to curtail the discussion unduly. But I have already told the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling) that he is going beyond the scope of the new Clause. I hope that he will confine himself to the substance of the new Clause.

Mr. Darling: If you are saying that I am out of order, Sir Leonard. I will respect your decision. But these are the kind of points which I think ought to be discussed by the Minister with our delegation, and the kind of suggestions which the delegation should put forward. To that extent I suggest that I am in order.
The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown) raised the point which I am going to raise, but which I want to put in a more practical form, regarding the question of imports of iron ore. The hon. Gentleman mentioned it in a general way. We do not want fierce and unnecessary competition in any of the fields of action, and I take as an example the importation of iron ore. Both the United Kingdom and the Community will be making increasingly heavy demands on what iron ore supplies are available in the world.
We want joint, co-operative or at least complementary development by the Community overseas and by the United Kingdom overseas for the tapping of new sources of iron ore in Africa and elsewhere so that we can avoid competitive scrambles. We want to go ahead together, and these are matters which ought to he discussed by our delegation with the High Authority.
British exports of steel to Europe and British imports of steel from Europe are more or less equal. Of course, they are not the same kind of steel. We want to see that kind of European trading developed and not curtailed. We do not want to see either the Community or ourselves setting up uneconomic plants for the sole purpose of making either the Community or ourselves independent of exports or imports. We want to work together in all these fields, and we can

only do that if our permanent delegation at Luxembourg has the full authority of the Minister to discuss projects like these, and if the delegation is fully supplied with all the information it ought to have.
Finally, there is the problem of the common market to be faced. This is a matter which will be the most difficult of all for our delegation at Luxembourg and for our steel industry here to contemplate. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) has said, a common market will mean that any dual prices will have to go. A system of dual prices has been practised in relation to Belgian steel, and Belgian steel prices have been lower at home than the prices charged to other members of the Community. Now, those and other dual prices will have to go.
In our close association with the Community we may be called upon to have no dual prices ourselves. This is not very important in regard to steel, but it is most important in regard to coal. But if we get rising prices in our own steel products as a result of the rising cost of coal, it may be that in order to keep down home prices some of our steel exporters will raise their export prices. We must contemplate making arrangements with the Iron and Steel Community at Luxembourg which will make it impossible for any of our steel exporters to follow that line.
There are many other problems which the Minister, the Steel Board and our delegation at Luxembourg will have to consider, but if these problems are to be tackled satisfactorily we must have some kind of clear policy of association with the Community. It is no use leaving the matter in the air. We must reduce it to some formal understanding of the limits of our association with the Community. We suggest that the machinery for creating that policy and for carrying it out is provided in the Clause we are now recommending to the Committee, and which I hope the Minister will accept.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Sandys: Looking round the Committee and seeing a number of hon. Members on both sides who have sat with me at Strasbourg takes me back to old times, and so does the discussion which we have just had, although it is very remote from the Iron and Steel Bill. I am the first to recognise the immense importance of


establishing satisfactory relations not only between the Government of this country and the Schuman Community. but also between the responsible Iron and Steel Board and the Government in the policy to be pursued in this important field.
I find myself in complete sympathy, not in detail but in general terms, with what has been said by speakers in this short but interesting debate which was initiated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens). This is not the occasion to discuss relations between the United Kingdom and the Schuman Authority, although I was much interested by what the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling) said. I understand that the reason he was allowed to deploy his arguments at such length was that we had all done such good work in the earlier part of the afternoon.
I very much welcome the attitude of the speakers this evening towards European unity. In reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blyth, I should like to make it perfectly clear that I have certainly not changed my opinions about that. My hon. and right hon. Friends and myself have always been in favour of close collaboration with whatever organisation is set up on the Continent for the control of steel and coal. Incidentally, I am glad to see that another Strasbourger has come into the Chamber in the person of the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton). Let me make it equally clear that we on this side of the Committee neither now nor previously when we were on the other side of the House ever suggested that the United Kingdom should join a supra-national authority.[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No, that is perfectly clear. We regretted—and we expressed that regret—the decision of the late Government not to take part in the original conference to which they were invited and at which the plan for the Schuman Authority was conceived and discussed.

Mr. Mitchison: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that one of the preconditions of attending that conference at all was that the concept of a supranational authority should be accepted in advance?

Mr. Sandys: I do not accept that, for the simple reason that, as the hon. and

learned Member will remember, the Dutch Government came into that conference with reservations of just the kind that we considered reasonable: that is to say, that they would enter the conference and that they reserved their position according to what might emerge at the end. It seemed to me and to my hon. and right hon. Friends, and we said so at the time, that that was the right view to take—that we should go into the conference and then do our best to secure an arrangement under which we could play our part.
All that I can say on this point, which it is completely out of order to pursue now, is that I felt then, and still feel, that if we had taken part in those discussions at the original conference we might, by our influence, have secured the setting up of an authority or an arrangement on the Continent in which we would have been able to participate more closely than we are able to do in the supra-national authority in the extreme form in which it has now been set up.

Mr. A. G. Bottomley: I am a later Strasbourgian; but I recall that there was sent to a committee of the Council of Europe a resolution known as the Macmillan-Eccles plan, and that no member of the Conservative Party attended the committee to talk about it and to give advice. In those circumstances, how can the Minister say that we were in a position to support it one way or the other?

Mr. Sandys: I do not think that we should enter into a discussion on what happened there.

Mr. Hugh Dalton: Dangerous detail.

Mr. Sandys: I have probably wandered less far from the subjects under discussion than most of the hon. Members who preceded me.
As for the proposed new Clause, I think that the right hon. Gentleman, on reflection, will agree that it has certain shortcomings and drafting objections. The first and most obvious is that, under subsection (2), the Minister of Supply would be obliged to consult the Board in regard to instructions to the delegation at Luxembourg. That would cover consultations in regard to coal, which is


obviously quite outside the sphere of the Board.
The most serious problem raised by the new Clause is a constitutional one. It is a well-established fact that relations with foreign countries are the responsibility of the Foreign Secretary, and not the Minister of Supply. On the other hand, the relations between the Board and the Government are relations between the Board and the Minister of Supply. That is a constitutional difficulty which will have to be overcome.
A more serious constitutional problem is that of establishing the principle that the Foreign Secretary should be statutorily required to consult a body in this country before issuing instructions to the representatives of Her Majesty's Government abroad. That is a novel proposal and one which would, if accepted, undoubtedly have repercussions over quite a wide field and could not lightly be incorporated into an Act of Parliament.
As I have made clear in an earlier debate on this Bill, our intention is that there shall be close, full and continuous consultation with the Board in regard to the policy to be pursued by the Government in their relations with the Schuman Community on iron and steel problems. That is our declared intention and I ask hon. Members opposite to accept the fact that we are completely and entirely sincere in expressing that intention.
Within that sphere there are many subjects about which it would be desirable for the Government to consult the Board. Some have been mentioned this evening and I can think of others. But what is being asked, as I understand, is that certain powers and duties should be entrusted to the Board and the Minister for the making of policy towards the Schuman Authority. If the Committee will allow me I will go through the new Clause and see what are the main points which emerge.
Subsection (1) states that the Government should keep the Board informed of the proceedings of the institutions of the Schuman Community. That seems to me an entirely reasonable request subject, of course, to the proviso in subsection (4) about matters which it would not be in the national interest to disclose. I am not quite sure whether the words "national interest" are a little too

narrow, and I should like to consider them.
Subsection (2) says that
The Minister shall consult the Board and consider any advice tendered to him
about instructions to be sent to the delegation to the High Authority. That is completely in line with what I have said both today and previously that it is our intention that such consultation shall take place. Indeed, I will go further and say I hope there will be two-way consultation and advice. It should not simply be a question of the Government asking the Board for their views on a particular issue. The Board should have a standard instruction to make known to the Government their views on important issues which arise at the seat of the High Authority. The fact that they were kept informed of the proceedings at Luxembourg would place the Board in a position to make those comments as and when they thought fit.
Subsection (3) relates to information. I am not sure that the Board will not already be able to obtain all the information they require for this purpose, but if, when I have looked more closely into what has been said during the debate, we reach the conclusion that a further provision is required, I will consider whether it should be inserted into the Bill. If so, I think it will probably be in Clause 13, which assembles all the points on which information is required.
Those are the three points on which powers are requested under this proposed Clause. I am in full sympathy with the wish to express in the Bill, in some form or another, our desire to make our collaboration with the Schuman Community a reality. Very reluctantly, for the constitutional reasons which I have explained, we do not feel able to accept the proposed Clause in this form. I am not convinced that we cannot overcome these constitutional difficulties, but I will undertake between now and the Report stage to consider whether we can include in the Bill, in a more suitable form, an expression of our intention.
Meanwhile, I want once again to give the Committee our assurance that it is the Government's intention that the Board shall play a full part in the shaping of British policy on steel towards the Schuman Community. We shall ensure that the Board have all the necessary


facilities to make their contribution real and effective.

Mr. G. Darling: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, I wonder if he would answer a question. Could he tell us whether our delegation at Luxembourg—the very excellent permanent delegation we have there—has made any representations about its own position that he might take into consideration in drafting whatever Amendment he brings forward on Report stage; whether it has said it wants some closer association with the iron and steel industry in a formal kind of way?

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Sandys: It happens that I had a talk with the Ministry of Supply delegate at Luxembourg this morning. I am going to have a further word with her—the delegate happens to be a lady—before she leaves again. I had the benefit of some advice in considering exactly how we could meet the Committee's desire on this point.

Mr. Robens: The right hon. Gentleman has gone a long way to meet our desires in this matter, and I am sure he will agree that in putting down this new Clause we have done something useful for the general benefit of the country. I do not suppose there is any point in arguing the constitutional matters here. The right hon. Gentleman will be well advised on those by people much more competent than I am to deal with them. I understand that broadly he accepts the principles contained in the new Clause. and that he will give further consideration to them, and bring in a re-draft on Report stage. We can thank him for that very much indeed, and we shall look at the matter again on the Report stage when he produces his new Clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — First Schedule.—(TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS, ETC.)

Mr. Low: I beg to move, in page 29, line 2, after "been," to insert "members or."
This very small Amendment rectifies an omission in paragraph 4 of the First Schedule, which places on members of the Corporation as well as on their former staff an obligation to assist the Minister and the Treasury and the Iron

and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency by the provision of information relevant to the hand-over from the Corporation to the Agency and to their respective functions thereafter. I think the Committee will agree that it is clearly equitable that members of the Corporation and the staff should be on the same footing, and I think the Committee will readily agree to the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Second Schedule.-(PROVISIONS AS TO IRON AND STEEL BOARD AND IRON AND STEEL HOLDING AND REALISATION AGENCY.)

Mr. Low: I beg to move, in page 33. line 1, to leave out from the beginning. to "to," in line 3, and to insert:
It shall be within the capacity of the Board and the Agency as statutory corporations to do such things and enter into such transactions as are incidental or conducive.
The object of this Amendment is to remove certain doubts that have arisen about the effect of this paragraph as it is now drafted upon the powers of the Board and the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency. Some, indeed, have thought that the paragraph widened the Board's powers. I think the Committee will be familiar with the point that is dealt with by the paragraph, namely, the capacity of the Board and the Agency to exercise civil rights under the law in connection with their statutory functions, just in the same way as, in the Act of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss), in Section 2 (4) and (6), he dealt with the capacity of the Corporation.
Many Members of the Committee will be familiar with the words "to do such things as are incidental or conducive" in companies' memoranda of association. We have thought it right in our re-draft of the paragraph, which we submit to the Committee now, to use exactly the same words as are used in many memoranda of association.
There is one other change that we have made in this Amendment. The paragraph as now drafted includes the words "as appear to them." We have substituted the words "as are incidental" for the phrase "as appear to them to be necessary for or incidental," and thus, if the exercise of this capacity is ever questioned, provide for a recourse to the


courts which was excluded as the paragraph was originally drafted. I trust that the Committee will accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Low: I beg to move, in page 33, line 23, at the end, to insert:
and any such appointment shall be made on such terms as to remuneration, allowances and pensions (if any) as the Board, or, as the case may be, the Agency may determine.
The main effect of this Amendment is to make it quite clear that the Board and the Agency may set up pension schemes for their staff. We put this provision in the Schedule in case there should be any doubt as to their capacity or power to do so, particularly after the Amendment which the Committee have just accepted in line I of the Schedule.
The Board's staff pensions are already mentioned in paragraph 8, but there is no such mention of pensions for the Agency staff. The Agency, of course, will be a temporary body, but we are anxious to provide in the Bill an opportunity for employees of the Agency to earn some pension rights. This would be important to any who join the Agency from the Corporation and who have some service behind them. We think that the Committee will agree that the Amendment improves the Schedule and adds something of importance to paragraph 7.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Low: I beg to move, in page 33, line 24, after "Board," to insert" or of the Agency."
I think that it would be convenient to explain to the Committee that what I have to say on this Amendment is relevant to all the remaining Amendments to the Second Schedule.
In the last Amendment, it was made clear that both the Board and the Agency will be able under the Amendment which we have just discussed, to set up a pension scheme for their staffs. Paragraph 8, with which this Amendment deals, provides that, if an employee of the Board is appointed to be a member of the Board. he may be treated as a member of the staff pension scheme as if his service as a Board member were service under the Board, without involving the provision that payments in respect of pensions to the Board members have to be deter-

mined by the Minister with the approval of the Treasury.
The Committee will remember that provision in Clause 2 (7), and there is a subsequent requirement for a statement of pension provision to be laid before Parliament, which an earlier Amendment, which was accepted, imposed. As drafted, paragraph 8 does not apply to staff of the Board or Agency being appointed members of the Agency. That is so because originally no provision was made for pensions to Agency members. That has now been altered, and provision has been made for the preservation of existing pension rights of persons appointed members of the Agency, and the total effect of these six Amendments is to secure similar treatment for employees of the Agency in the unlikely event of their being appointed to membership of either the Board or the Agency. Although I say "unlikely this is not impossible, and these Amendments will also cover the possibility of an employee of the Board becoming a member of the Agency.
That is the explanation of this short and apparently simple Amendment. I am afraid that the explanation is not as simple as it might have been, but I hope that the Committee will have understood it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 33, line 26, after "Board," insert "or of the Agency."

In line 27, after "Board," insert "or of the Agency."

In line 28, after "Board," insert "or of the Agency."

In line 31, after Board." insert "or of the Agency."

In line 32. at end, insert:
or, as the case may be, are to be determined by the Treasury."—[Mr. Low.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Schedule, as amended, be the Second Schedule to the Bill."

Mr. Sandys: Before we conclude the Committee stage, and we are concluding it one day ahead of schedule, it would be ungenerous if I were not to express my thanks and appreciation to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) and his hon. Friends for the most co-operative way in which they have helped us.
I am the last to suggest that, because we have got through the Committee stage so smoothly, it in any way reflects upon the attitude of hon. Members opposite towards the Measure. We know that their views on the organisation of the steel industry are different from ours and that their approach is altogether different, but what we appreciate is, that throughout the Committee stage, they have genuinely endeavoured to offer constructive Amendments to the Bill. We have done our best to accept as many of their Amendments as we could. At any rate, I hope we can all feel that the Bill will now go forward to the Report stage with improvements which have been made as a result of contributions from all sides of the Committee.
Discussions can no doubt take place through the usual channels to ascertain, in so far as it will be needed, how the time we have gained can be allotted to the later stages of the Bill.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: On my own behalf and on that of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I wish to say that we very much appreciate the words which the Minister has just spoken, and reciprocate his expressions of good will and appreciation in that we have been able to work well on both sides as a Committee without losing our tempers unduly. We realise that we have been a business Committee. We have discussed a number of very important matters with energy and sometimes with heat, though not often, and I believe that we have done as good a job in considering the details of the Bill as any Committee does when operating in the ordinary way upstairs, even if it has a longer period in which to do its work.
I am glad the right hon. Gentleman pointed out that the fact that we have taken a day less on the Committee stage than we anticipated we should need is no indication whatsoever that my hon. Friends have in any way weakened their opposition to or dislike of the Bill. It is important to point out that we have taken a day less because we found as we went through the Bill that although there were a large number of matters which could have been discussed at greater length, we decided that it would be wiser not to do

that but to make our discussions as short and pithy as possible, to avoid any repetition and to concentrate, maybe, on further discussions on the Report stage, when we shall get half a day longer, and on the Third Reading, when we shall probably get half a day longer, if that is agreeable to the House. We shall then be able to make a better contribution and more effective comments on the Bill than on the Committee stage.
On behalf of my hon. Friends, I wish to say that, while we appreciate that at the end of the day we have failed to convince the right hon. Gentleman and the Government that the Bill is a rotten one and full of defects, both general and in detail, we appreciate that he has listened to our arguments on a number of occasions and has accepted, if not the Amendments we have moved, at any rate the fact that there is something valuable and worth while in what we have said and has undertaken to consider the points between now and the Report stage and to meet us if possible. On many occasions he and the Parliamentary Secretary, who has served him well, have made valuable concessions to us in reply to the arguments we have put forward, and we appreciate that.
When we come to the Report stage I hope we shall be able to carry on in as good a temper. I think the experiment, if it can be called an experiment, of getting a voluntary Guillotine has worked well on both sides. There has been cooperation. We have had effective discussions on important matters, and my hon. Friends have been remarkably assiduous in the way they have helped me. They have expressed their views and disagreements most effectively, and I am very grateful to them. I hope we may continue further discussion on this Bill in the same spirit on the Report stage and Third Reading. But let it be understood that however good the spirit of our discussions may be, our feelings about the Bill remain rather keener and more bitter at this stage than they did when we started the discussion.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next and to be printed. [Bill 47.]

Orders of the Day — SYNTHETIC POTASSIUM NITRATE (DUTY)

10.2. p.m.

The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. H. R. Mackeson): I beg to move,
That the Import Duties (Exemptions) (No. 1) Order, 1953 (S.I., 1953, No. 141), dated 3rd February, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.
One or two hon. Members would like me to give a brief explanation of the reason for this Order, and it will be very brief. As from the 1st January, 1948, the 10 per cent. ad valorem duty on synthetic potassium nitrate, which was hitherto levied, was, in error, withdrawn. The object of this Order is to restore that duty. Synthetic potassium nitrate is used largely in the glass industry, while natural nitrate is, of course, used as a fertiliser.
It may be helpful if I describe briefly the circumstances in which the original Order withdrawing the duty was made in order to make the situation of our overseas friends quite clear. Until 1947 potassium nitrate, both natural and synthetic, was liable to the 10 per cent. duty, and in 1947 the Government of the day, as part of an exchange of tariff concessions with Chile, undertook to provide for duty-free entry of potassium nitrate other than synthetic. Chile was only interested in natural potassium nitrate, which is imported by us from that country in large quantities for use as a fertiliser.
Unfortunately, the Order giving effect to this agreement inadvertently exempted all potassium nitrate from import duty, including the synthetic. The mistake has recently been brought to the notice of the Government by a United Kingdom producer of synthetic, and this Order re-imposes the 10 per cent. duty on synthetic potassium nitrate while leaving natural nitrate free from duty in compliance with the international commitments entered into by our predecessors. Very small quantities of synthetic nitrate are imported as compared with production at home.
The only point I want to make and one in which this House will be interested is, that there will be no difficulty in

administering this Order. In point of fact, Her Majesty's Customs can differentiate between the natural and synthetic product. All that this Order does is to correct a technical error in the drafting of the Order made three years ago.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. A. G. Bottomley: The Secretary for Overseas Trade has given us an explanation which clears up one or two points which I have raised with him earlier, and I am obliged to him for doing so. I am always a little alarmed about the imposition of a duty which may put up the cost to the consumers, although it may help manufacturers. However, we understand that this Order results from an oversight which took place in the drafting of the original Order on the subject, and we accept that as a matter of fact.

Orders of the Day — CUTLERY AND SILVERWARE (TAX)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Studholme.]

10.6 p.m.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: The purpose of this debate is to pinpoint the decline in the cutlery and silverware industry and to advocate the reduction or the abolition of the present 100 per cent. Purchase Tax or the 33⅓ per cent. Purchase Tax, where they apply.
We are doing this because this very important industry is dying on its feet and I hope to show the logical way whereby the industry can reach a measure of prosperity again. I know that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury cannot give me a definite answer tonight, and I know, too, that in the short time at my disposal I cannot fully make out the case for the industry. Therefore, I want to put to him two questions and respectfully to ask from him an affirmative reply in each case.
The first question is: Will he assure us, and, through us, the industry, that the many representations which have been made to various Government Departments, and the excellent speech


of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) on 12th December last year, will receive very serious consideration by the Treasury, before the Budget is finalised? The second question is: Will the Financial Secretary be willing, in the very near future, to meet a representative deputation composed of hon. Members of all parties and representatives of the trade and to listen carefully to their views on the situation that exists in the industry? It is a story which, with the best will in the world, I cannot complete tonight. An affirmative reply to these questions is vital to the city which I partly represent.
The industry, one of the prides of British craftsmanship, is in serious danger of near extinction. It is because this important trade is one of the best associated with the steel industry, in terms of convertibility value, and can earn precious overseas currency including dollars, that the Treasury must not allow the present decline in the industry to continue unchecked. If that decline continues because Treasury help is refused, it will be a national calamity.
There are two things that prevent the rehabilitation of this industry. First, there are the restrictions imposed on production, many of which are now unnecessary, some of which are distinctly silly and all of which increase the price at home and abroad. I shall not deal with that problem because I understand that certain alterations will be made in regard to those restrictions in the near future and I am waiting to learn what they will be.

Mr. R. Jennings: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I had a letter from the Chancellor this morning promising to bear the matter of Purchase Tax in mind, but saying that he could go no further until he considers his Budget proposals? I think, therefore, we can accept that as a promise by my right hon. Friend to consider the matter when the time comes.

Mr. Winterbottom: Yes, but the hon. Gentleman will realise that when the Chancellor sends him a letter he does not, unfortunately, send a copy of it to me

Mr. Jennings: The hon. Gentleman should raise the matter with the Chancellor.

Mr. Winterbottom: I want a reply from the Financial Secretary. I know that the hon. Member for Hallam (Mr. Jennings) and myself are at one on this issue in order that Sheffield shall be reassured officially from the Front Bench opposite.
Secondly, and most important, there is the problem of Purchase Tax. I could stress the anomalies that are arising as a consequence of it, especially on goods that are necessary to the domestic table and also on the tools of trade, but time forbids. I shall, however, press one argument strongly on the Financial Secretary. In this industry production for export at competitive world prices is automatically conditioned by the capacity of the home market to absorb the surplus that cannot be sold overseas. If we are to capture the dollar market for cutlery and silverware, it is essential that our price should be right. Incidentally, at the moment there are no restrictions in the United States of America and Canda on the sale of cutlery and silverware.
There are innumerable instances of orders that have been rejected in those two countries. The explanation is that enterprise in design is suffering because manufacturers of the necessary kinds of cutlery and silverware cannot be expected to embark on the initial work of producing a design, or even sizes of that design, after meeting the expenses of designing and of casting the dies, if stock is left on shelves in this country because it is subject in certain cases to Purchase Tax of 100 per cent.
For instance, to make a 22-inch tray for export it is essential to have at least 12 stampings, all being produced at the same time. The following figures, though hypothetical, prove my point. If nine trays go for export and three are left unsold in this country because of Purchase Tax, how can we hope to capture world markets and maintain employment in this industry, which 2,000 skilled craftsmen have left during the last six to eight months? The reason is that they know it is a dying industry. They know that the skill that they have used is comparatively useless if the goods that cannot be sold abroad are allowed to remain on the shelves since they cannot be sold because of their inflated prices due to Purchase Tax.
The industry will never regain its proud export position unless each manufacturer


can standardise within his works. That is Sheffield's essential need. There cannot be a set of dies for the Continental trade, a set for the Commonwealth trade, and another for the American trade. There is an inevitable increase in the cost of production because of that increase in the number of dies. Some restrictions have been removed and others, I understand, are to be removed shortly, but even then the industry cannot produce at world competitive prices if the relief market the home market—is bogged down by Purchase Tax.
I want briefly to put the present position. Australia has been allowing the importation of 20 per cent. of its former imports of cutlery and silverware. During the last week or so, I understand, the figure has been increased to 30 per cent., but this will not be effective for the next 12 months. The three markets of Australia, New Zealand and South Africa used to take 53 per cent. of the whole of our export trade in cutlery and silverware. We now have about half of that market. Norway, last week, prevented the import of knives, forks and spoons.
The only chance for the industry is development on the American Continent. The United States and Canada are willing buyers if the price is right, but in budgeting for their prices manufacturers cannot be right if they are unable to sell their cutlery at home. That is the paradox and the peculiarity of the industry. At the moment hotels, restaurants and big firms will not purchase new goods if they can avoid it. I could quote one very well-known firm which has reduced its orders for cutlery and silverware to the extent of 100,000 items this year alone, and I could go into the statistics of the trade in regard to many firms to prove my contention. That is why the industry is dying.
The Sheffield cutlery industry is declining. I do not object to the death of the present Government—I could not be expected to say anything else—but I do object to their cutting their own throats with Sheffield steel. My final point is that these are the only goods on our domestic tables that are not now freed from Purchase Tax. I plead most earnestly with the Financial Secretary to give affirmative replies to my questions and, if he can do this, to make arrangements to implement those affirmative

replies as speedily as possible, in the interests of this vital industry in Sheffield.

10.18 p.m.

Mr. Peter Roberts: 1, too, should like to press my hon. Friend on this point on behalf of the industries in Sheffield and also in the other great cities of Birmingham and elsewhere where these industries are carried on.
I must point out, first, that deputations went to the previous Government on a number of occasions on this very point. It is unfortunate that the warnings which we gave at that time, from both sides of the House, were not accepted. In fact, I remember asking the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), when he held the post which my hon. Friend holds now, whether it was his intention by Purchase Tax to move the labour force from the cutlery industry into the steel industry by bankrupting the firms engaged in cutlery. I must admit that the right hon. Gentleman said that that was not so, but we warned him that that would be the result. And that has been the result.
I sincerely hope that tonight we shall have some encouragement from my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to show that this Conservative Government are prepared to do what a Labour Government would not do. I would point out to my hon. Friend that it is very difficult for back benchers to put down Amendments to the Finance Bill when dealing with Purchase Tax because, usually, the form is so carefully drawn that they would be out of order.

Mr. Speaker: In any case, one cannot discuss Amendments to the Finance Bill on the Adjournment.

Mr. Roberts: I will not follow that point any further. I am sure my hon. Friend sees the importance of realising this point now rather than later.

Mr. Joseph T. Price: It is even more important to go into the Lobby against it.

Mr. Roberts: I would stress that, first. we need greater overall reduction in the cutlery trade. We believe that the 331/3 per cent. tax is a handicap to the basic trade of the industry while the 100 per cent. tax on the luxury side is killing the craftsmanship in Sheffield. My great


great grandfather, 150 years ago, in Sheffield, I am proud to say, was one of the greatest makers of Sheffield plate. From his time has been built up a craftsmanship for which the city has been known for many years and which we would all be sorrry to see die out now. It is not enough to say that a tax is to be put on luxury goods; we should see that the craftsmen can still get their living.
I will not detain the House further, because I hope that we shall have further support from other hon. Members, but I can assure my hon. Friend that when the question of a production council was considered a large number of hon. Members in all parts of the House realised the harm which Purchase Tax was doing to the silverware and jewelleryware trades as well as to the cutlery trade. I urge on my hon. Friend the importance of considering this matter with his right hon. Friend.

10.22 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Mulley: I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Brightside (Mr. R. E. Winterbottom) for being so generous in allowing other hon. Members time to take part in this very precious half hour of debate, a fact which is not generally appreciated by hon. Members.
I have spoken on this subject a number of times and I wish to underline one or two points. First, I would say to the hon. Member for Hallam (Mr. Jennings) and the hon. Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts) that it is not our desire to make a particular political point of this matter. If it were a question of politics the Financial Secretary and the Chancellor could have responded last year when the position began to deteriorate very rapidly. We want to do something for the workpeople and the firms in Sheffield, and whether hon. Members opposite or we get the political credit is another matter.
In support of the plea that the 334 per cent. tax should be removed, I would point out to the Financial Secretary that the knife, fork and spoon about which we are talking tonight are the only items on the table which are subject to Purchase Tax and we think it is time that they were freed from that tax. The

100 per cent. tax on luxury goods is particularly important from the point of view of the craftsman. We have had valuable information from the assay master of Birmingham and the Financial Secretary may recall that I gave almost identical figures of a 60 per cent. decline in the City of Sheffield when I spoke on this matter in an Adjournment debate in December.
It is a strange thing that the Treasury are not able to produce any figures of the actual yield of the 100 per cent. tax on silver and cutlery apart from a number of other items which are not strictly related to this trade. I have asked Questions and found it impossible to get the exact figure, but I have taken the trouble to find from eight individual firms representative of the industry in Sheffield that the amount of the tax they have paid at the 100 per cent. rate has dropped by 80 per cent. between 1945 and 1952. A sum of £95,880 was paid in 1945 and only £20,657 in 1952. I suggest that if the tax were reduced from 100 per cent. to 331/3 per cent. it would give the industry a chance to survive and enrich the Treasury.
The Financial Secretary may not be aware that if an item is called a paperknife it is subject to tax at 100 per cent. But if it is called a letter-opener it becomes liable to Purchase Tax at 33⅓ per cent. The anomalies which arise regarding articles which are in cases or are not in cases; the invoicing and the amount of work involved for the industry as well as the staff at the Treasury, and the Customs and Excise, would be lessened if the tax could be reduced. I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear all these considerations very carefully in mind before the Budget statement is produced.

10.27 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): As was indicated by the hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. R. E. Winterbottom), it is peculiarly difficult for me at this season of the year to reply to a debate of this character. In the first place, as you, Mr. Speaker, reminded my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts) a few moments ago, we cannot anticipate legislation. I have to use the formula, with which I make myself unfortunately tedious at Question time, of saying that I cannot anticipate my right hon Friend's Budget statement.
I have listened with great interest to the speeches made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and as they know, representations on this subject have been received by my right hon. Friend and myself. We are to a considerable degree aware of the problems which exist. The hon. Member for Brightside asked me to answer two questions. The first was whether serious consideration would be given to these representations. I have no difficulty in answering that question in the affirmative. It is the object of my hon. Friend and those associated with him to give the fullest consideration to all representations made to us in connection with articles and commodities which in these days come within the tax sphere. I can assure the House we do our best to give the most earnest and serious consideration to the points, issues and questions which arise.
The hon. Member asked whether I would receive a deputation of hon. Members. I am sorry that he thought it necessary to put that question in so formal a way across the Floor of this House. I am sure he is aware—

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: I said in the very early future.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: —that my right hon. Friend and myself regard it as our duty to make appropriate arrangements for lion. Members to see us, if they wish to do so. Needless to say, that would apply in the present case, and I feel it a pity if hon. Members are under any illusion that we are in any sense inaccessible. On the contrary we regard it as a duty to put ourselves at the disposal of hon. Members who desire to put their points of view before us. Provided a mutually convenient time can be arranged, so far as we are concerned such facilities can easily be provided. My right hon. Friend will not be available for the next few weeks, for reasons which are well known, but I shall be at the disposal of hon. Members.
On the broad issues which arise, it is very difficult for me to say anything that is not of a general nature, but I can assure the House that we have a very high regard for this ancient industry, with its long tradition of craftsmanship, with which in particular the family of my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley has been associated for a very long time indeed.

It is an industry with a long tradition and with a very high repute in the world.
I do not think I exaggerate if I say that its products, from the point of view of quality, are without equal anywhere in the world; and we have the very highest regard for it both as an ancient craft industry and as a valuable contributor to our balance of payments position. I appreciate that, in particular, it has encountered difficulties as a result of the recent reduction in Australian imports, though recent news would appear to indicate that that situation looks like tending to improve.
The hon. Member for Brightside in the course of his natural enthusiasm betrayed himself into a certain degree of exaggeration. which is unusual for him. He said, as I understood him, that cutlery was the only item on the dinner table which was subject to this tax. He will, no doubt, recall that cut glassware carries a tax generally at 662/3 per cent., that tablecloths carry tax, and that certain forms of what I understand are called electro-plated condiment receptacles similarly bear tax. Therefore, the case so far as cutlery is concerned—though I would not suggest it was in any degree diminished by these facts—was not, as a matter of fact, accurately described as being the only article on the dinner table which enjoys the blessings of taxation.
We make it our business to be fully informed of the facts of this, as of other industries. The extent to which the difficulties of this or of any industry are directly due to taxation as opposed to other factors is a matter of opinion. There are very few who would suggest that taxation was the only difficulty which a particular industry encountered, and certainly none of the hon. Members who have spoken tonight made that no doubt exaggerated suggestion which one has heard in other quarters outside this House.
It is equally clear that taxation is a material factor in one's assessment of the situation as it affects various industries, and it is particularly appropriate at this time of year that that aspect of the matter should be given the closest consideration. From that point of view in particular, this debate has been very helpful to my right hon. Friend. What has been said is not merely on record in my memory—though I have listened carefully—but is on record


in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and, as the House knows, my right hon. Friend pays a great deal of attention to what is said by hon. Members on both sides of the House in the course of our debates.
The facts of the situation as we know them, and the way in which they have been stated tonight, will receive the most careful consideration in order that in this matter, as in others, we shall act sensibly and rightly, bearing in mind that the facts which affect this industry affect other industries and the wellbeing of the community. As the hon. Member for Brightside indicated, that is all that I can reasonably be expected to say from this Box at this time, but I am glad to say it, and I hope that I may, without impertinence, congratulate all the hon. Members who have taken part not only for the excellent way in which they have deployed the case but for a display of brevity which is in a very high category indeed.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. John Hynd: The main point, which I would like to put in the few seconds which remain,

and which I and my hon. Friends want to impress on the Financial Secretary, is that while we appreciate that Purchase Tax may be a form of taxation which cannot immediately be removed generally, there is a special argument for cutlery. That is that it is essentially a trade associated with this country, where the highest standards are found, and specifically associated all over the world with Sheffield.
Furthermore, this industry is not merely suffering from the general effects of Purchase Tax, but is losing the ancient skill which it has developed through generations; and which, as the Financial Secretary knows, is something which cannot be regained if, after a deathbed repentance, somebody decides to remove Purchase Tax altogether and new apprentices are brought in. That simply cannot be done and I would—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-four Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.